What was the ethnicity of the Ancient Romans?
Not Roman in the sense of everyone within the Roman sphere of influence, Roman as in the original Romans who built Rome.
What was the ethnicity of the Ancient Greeks?
Before you reply with simply 'Greek', understand that the Ancient Hellenes are different than the modern Greeks of our time.
Be as specific as possible, please.
Other urls found in this thread:
unz.com
en.wikipedia.org
ancient-origins.net
haaretz.com
twitter.com
>Ancient Hellenes are different than the modern Greeks of our time
Not at all. There are plenty of white-jew mix Greeks you'd typically find among Athens or Ionia at the time considering Jewish diaspora.
That's like supposing White Italians don't exist. It's simply not true, and these people have preserved the same bloodlines from many many years ago.
Their populations weren't totally replaced by turks and niggers. merely devastated.
Romans
...
...
Greeks
...
Not this shit again, go argue/troll with the /his/ autists.
They were white.
>Before you reply with simply 'Greek', understand that the Ancient Hellenes are different than the modern Greeks of our time.
No they are not.All paintings from ancient greece are looking exactly like the modern day Hellenes.(pic related)
>providing colorized statues which was painted in random
>against original ancient greek colorized paintings
stay salty stay mad nordcuck
They were green aliens from alpha centauri.
...
...
...
...
...
...
Well the actual romans came from east somewhere probably greece migth even have been from anatolia (according to roman mythos)
Then you hade a some semi-celts (celts but influenced heavily by italics) in northern Italy, a bunch of italic tribes in mainland italy (Etruscan for example) and in southern italy and Sicily you hade some greek colonies, then when the romans grew all these people got incorporated into the S.P.Q.R
basically you cant pin a ethnicity or culture to the romans
Unless you use the words latin or roman but that dosent tell you very much does it
Blond Egyptians
Troy was founded by displaced Hittites and then Rome was founded by displaced Trojans
Does he have dreadlocks? WE
>Roman as in the original Romans who built Rome.
The very original? Nordics.
...
...
...
Check this out: unz.com
>American education
WE
>What was the ethnicity of the Ancient Romans?
Ethnically they referred to themselves as "Latin"
>What was the ethnicity of the Ancient Greeks?
Ethnically they refereed to themselves as "Hellenic", homer also calls them "achaeans" and "argives" when talking about the (to them) ancient greeks
>Before you reply with simply 'Greek', understand that the Ancient Hellenes are different than the modern Greeks of our time.
the modern greeks also refer to themselves as "hellenic"
is that specific enough?
>>American education
I know right?
Sixty years ago even Bertrand Russell, the British philosopher and socialist, believed that the Hellenes “were fair-haired invaders from the North, who brought the Greek language with them” (History of Western Philosophy, 1946).
...
...
...
Nobody know because scientists are too lazy to do DNA testing
looks like matteo renzi
(((1 post by this ID)))
>Ancient Greeks were Pelasgian/Illyrians. Greek traditional costum is Arvanitas.
inb4 reeeeeeeee
They were as they are now; more so than any other people in the world. Or in plain English, current peoples living in a location are more related to those who used to live there than any other people.
This is the case for virtually all civilizations barring those completely wiped out and colonized. The logistics of completely overturning an ethnic makeup of a people are mind boggling unless they've been effectively genocided.
>But Sup Forums says that African/Arab/Whatever genes are more dominate, and they owned that territory
They're not. Genetics is monstrously complicated, and observable changes tend to get the most attention.
To put it even more into context, the Hellenists changed the culture of the regions they conquered and encouraged their soldiers and officials to take native wives. The reason that Iraq or Turkey wasn't effectively "Greeked" in the ethnic sense was that for every Greek official or soldier that took a Mesopotamian/Anatolian wife there were thousands of the other pairings breeding alongside them and given the amount of time between then and now, the difference is minute.
...
>Ancient romans
Would go with the descendants of the Etruscans. In other words meditarenian people.
>Ancient greeks.
That's a hard one, with the Thracian and illyrians to the north, minoan and phoneticians to the south and a substrata of different tribes inhabiting asia minor, I'd go with mixed.
...
>the shoulders and arms on the left one
Post yfw Romans were into traps
white people are mostly descendants of the germanic barbarian tribes, the gauls, and the vikings, not ancient romans and greeks.
A real pity too, because there is every indication that romans and greeks where the superior race, thank goodness for race mixing, amirite?
...
>but wtf
>why ancient greeks had dark hair wtf???
>op said they were nordic wilt blond hair!!!
>inb4 nord cucks kill themselves
Oops, wrong pic. My bad. kek
R1B+J haplogroups, meaning an overlapping between a local mediteranean population(probably related with pheonicians) and an early invasion of Celts
I thought it was perfect reference to blond invaders from the north
A mixture of several Latin and Italic tribes from central Italy bound together by a civic identity
snownigger logic:
>south europe was nordic an shiet but den they mixed with dem middle eastern brown people n shiet
oh so the middle east was always brown?
>nah nigga, dey wuz nordic too n shiet, but den they mixed whith dark people too
who did they mix with?
>shut up nigguh WE WUZ KANGZ
Greece has a pretty homogenous population, meaning ancient greeks had the same appeareance as today greeks.
Ancient Nordics were nigger-tier, desu senpai.
...
...
Fucking THIS. THANK YOU, BASED FROG. Invasions of a few hundred people (or even a few thousand people) are NOT going to genetically displace a population of MILLIONS of people, because genetics is NOT a fucking game of Lego. This is why Modern Egyptians look the same as what the Ancient Egyptians looked like (for example). DNA tests have proven that Modern Egyptians are direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians and DNA doesn't lie. The ONLY things that are different about the Modern Egyptians is that the Arab conquest of Egypt forced the indigenous people of Egypt to accept Islam as their religion and to speak Arabic (however, the Copts preserved a Hellenised version of the Ancient Egyptian language to this very day).
* THANK YOU, BASED BURGER
Sorry, I thought your flag was French.
Very true
Otzi the Iceman's closest modern relatives were the villagers nearby who found his body
Thats right.Plus dont forget Greece was not colonized by the ottomans.We had only military occupasion.The last remaing turks went back to turkey at 1923 with the population exchange
Are you retarded? Look at the thread. They were all quite obviously white. And then they mixed with non-whites.
>This is why Modern Egyptians look the same as what the Ancient Egyptians looked like (for example). DNA tests have proven that Modern Egyptians are direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians and DNA doesn't lie.
No, they did not. And no they have not. King Tut's DNA was R1b. Do you really believe the 80 IQ mongrels in Egypt today founded ancient Egypt? There is a reason why they decayed.
>2300-2050 BC: “A man regards his son as his enemy.…A man of character goes in mourning because of what has happened in the land....Foreigners have become people everywhere....” [A footnote says: “The term “men, humans, people,” was used by Egyptians to designate themselves, in contrast to their foreign neighbors, who were not conceded to be real people.”] (ANET p. 441)
1775-1575 B.C.: "Atum, who made the people, Distinguished their nature, made their life, And separated colors, one from another...” [An introductory note on p. 365 says: “Egypt's world position under her Empire produced strong tendencies toward centralization and unification of Egyptian religion, with universalism and with syncretism of the gods..."]
...
So you be sayin?
WE
WUZ
ANCIENT ROMANS
What's with you? the Pharaoh are not the plebs.
>Romans
Latin Indo-Europeans mixed with the peoples who were in the peninsula before them.
>Greeks
A variety of Greek/Anatolian Indo-Europeans mixed with the people who were in the area before them.
Romans were a mix of latins, an indoeuropean tribe, sabinians (another IE population) and etruscans (most likely anatolian in origin and part of that genetic wawe that's still found in Europe in the Basque country, Sardinia and Tuscany. So basically they were an IE mutt population with some Etruscans sprinkled in them.
Every day when I think that Sup Forums can't get any dumber, Sup Forums surprises me. kek
You sure do a lot to contribute to this stupidity, with your ass backwards divide and conquer bullshit.
Romans were unibrows. Whites painted unibrows to look like their elite.
Ancient Greece and Rome
In both Ancient Greek and Roman cultures, unibrows were prized as beautiful, desirable features worn by the most intelligent and lusted-after women.[3] In Ancient Greece, women used powdered minerals or soot to paint their brows black. The Greeks valued purity, so women often left their unibrows untouched or darkened slightly with black powder. Eyebrows were also part of the Romans' elaborate beauty rituals, and like the Greeks, they favored a unibrow. Both cultures' poets and writers described women donning false unibrows to enhance their looks. These were made of dyed goat's hair and attached with tree resin.[4]
>paintings from over 2000 years after they accepted universalism
>most likely anatolian in origin
uuuuuuuuuuuh
>muh etruscans were lydians meme
They were indigenous.
If you are dark-hairs you can be Aryan
If you are blonde-hairs doesent mean you are Aryan
>failing for fake news
R1b-V88, a subclade specific to sub-Saharan Africa, is found in 60 to 95% of men in northern Cameroon.
>They were indigenous.
Sure they were. I'm gonna trust Livy, not what some random burger on an image board claims.
Genetic analysis of modern Egyptians reveals that they have paternal lineages common to indigenous North-East African populations primarily (Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco),
There are no genetic studies linking modern egyptians to ancient egyptians, it is too hard to get good DNA samples (this is from wikipedia, google it)
Do you want to know who is related to the we wuz kings? Jewish people, just read the bible
lol
>just read the bible
What did he mean by this?
TURKEY. "Romans" were from Troy. Read "The Aenid".
Tut's alleged R1b was M269, not V88.
I think the whole thing is bullshit, but that's why it was such a big deal.
> Implying Romans had the same make as those cum skinned barbarians up north.
I'm not pushing divide and conquer bullshit. I support European unity, check out my posts in this thread:
My ID in that thread is 2yUZLFy+. But even though I support European unity, I also support historical integrity. I don't agree with stealing other people's achievements.
Let's make a few things clear.
>White
Doesn't mean anything useful as the definition changes by who you ask and why. Nordic, Germanic, Mediterranean, Iberian, North Africa, Middle Eastern and their relative terms do mean something, but maybe not what people intend.
>R1b
The anomalies don't make the rule. This would be akin to claiming that since Alexander the Great had blonde hair, Macedonians/Greeks/Dorians/Mycenaeans were Germanic ethnically. These genes are in the populations you're looking at, but they are by no means the average.
This would be like in a modern context looking at the Swedish king and confirming that all Swedes are descended from Frenchmen. Besides this, royalty is always particularly weird as their breeding rules tend to go against the average.
>Foreigners have become everywhere, whatever
Do you have any idea how long ago this was? Do you have any idea how overpowering this influence would need to be? Do you have any what the definition of a foreigner is to a gentlemen who has never left their country?
>>muh etruscans were lydians meme
>They were indigenous.
The Lemnos inscription is explained how, then? The Etruscans had obviously come from the Aegean at some point, though they mixed in with Italian locals.
Moses and co. left Egypt in what is called the "exodus" wandered for forty years in the desert and founded Israel. They make a big deal of all this in the Bible.
This makes the jews the closest we have today to the ancient egyptians. Makes you think doesn't it? From Egypt and Akenathon to Moses and Israel, to king David, to Jesus to the davincy code conspiracy world where european kings wz kingz
Romans were mix of various Italic tribes. Estruscans, Samnites, Oscans etc.
Sure LARPing in the desert is fun.
haaretz.com
But obviously mostly the Latins, who wouldn't have had to walk so far to do this imaginary 'mixing'...
The Israelites were also white.
"The names of the Jewish towns captured by the Egyptian king Shishak in his campaign against Rehoboam, and recorded on the walls of the temple of Karnak, are each surmounted with the head and shoulders of a prisoner. Casts have been made of the heads by Sir Flinders Petrie, and the racial type represented by them turns out to be Amorite [Nordic] and not Jewish. We must conclude, therefore, that even after the revolt of the Ten Tribes the bulk of the population in Southern Judah continued to be Amorite, in race, though not in name. The Jewish type was so scantily represented that the Egyptian artist passed it over when depicting the prisoners who had been brought from Judah." (Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, pp. 115, 116)
This matches how they are described in the Bible. (1 Sam. 16:12, 17:42, Song. 5:10, Lam. 4:7, Gen. 25:25).
The only reason there are sometimes muddied lines between white and non-white is because of race mixing.
>Doesn't mean anything useful as the definition changes by who you ask and why. Nordic, Germanic, Mediterranean, Iberian, North Africa, Middle Eastern and their relative terms do mean something, but maybe not what people intend.
It may not be proof positive, but a random specimen of an ostensibly homogenous population belonging to a "Celtic" haplogroup is at least significant. Take a random inhabitant of China, and 99% they will be ethnically Chinese. Was King Tut not ethnically Egyptian?
>Do you have any idea how long ago this was? Do you have any idea how overpowering this influence would need to be? Do you have any what the definition of a foreigner is to a gentlemen who has never left their country?
I don't understand. Those accounts imply the Egyptians originally did not accept non-Egyptians as people, and then followed a downward path into universalism, which led to their racial decay. Much like Europe and America today, and Rome, and Greece before them.
True Romans:
Julius Caesar, Augustus,Tiberius, Claudius, Caligula and Nero.
Rome only became truly multicultural after Caesar's death. Before that, people outside Italian Peninsula weren't really considered Romans.
Whatever they were, I'm willing to bet they would still fit in the European genetic cluster.
And then Adam's name in Hebrew means "to be ruddy" or "to turn rosy".
Most likely Latino-Etruscan, so an Italic people mixed with local Etruscans who owned the area in the early period of Rome and thus likely had an influence on the patrician families.
The phenotypes are perfectly compatible, lots of Alpines and various Dinaricized faces along the variant of Meds and others.
Anyway, even before the Empire, you already had people from outside Rome like Pompey Magnus and his father, both from Marche(ancient Picenum).
>The only reason there are sometimes muddied lines between white and non-white is because of race mixing.
No, it literally means nothing at this point. Which is why it can be applied to numerous bullshit.
>Are pitbulls white?
>Are Anglos really white?
>Can gays be white?
>Random man has genes that could also be found in Celts
No, it really doesn't work this way. This would be akin to saying that since green eyes are relatively common in Arabs, that Arabs are therefore Irish related.
>
I don't understand. Those accounts imply the Egyptians originally did not accept non-Egyptians as people, and then followed a downward path into universalism, which led to their racial decay. Much like Europe and America today, and Rome, and Greece before them.
No, it really doesn't. Foreigner means simply stranger. Corinthians and Spartans regarded each-other as foreigners. We don't today because of relativism. I.e., I can't tell the difference between Koreans and Japanese, but they obviously can. Likewise, I would lump Danes and Swedes in a group unless it became relevant, but Africans and Europeans are definitely in different groups.
>No, it really doesn't work this way. This would be akin to saying that since green eyes are relatively common in Arabs, that Arabs are therefore Irish related
I still think the "Tut was a European!" stuff is shaky as fuck, but SNPs don't work that way. That's the entire reason they're useful for tracking genetic migrations/origins.
IF Tut carried a Eurasian paternal haplogroup, it by definition means one of his direct male ancestors was from such a population. Green eyes can express in a population once the recessive genes for such are present in both lines; the same simply cannot be said of unique Y-DNA polymorphisms. They don't work that way at all.
The genes are still there, they're just uncommon.
Nice cherrypicking pol.
...
You make the assumption that in 5000 years, the "jewish people" have not changed in phenotype and have not mixed with other races, and that is a really bad assumption.
>Which is why it can be applied to numerous bullshit.
If you want to say that partly white mongrels are white then yes. Otherwise no, you can not say mixed race Italians, Greeks, Armenians, Iranians, etc. are white. If those mixed race "people" did not exist, it would be fair skinned, usually fair haired, usually fair eyed whites in Europe, and brown and Asiatic peoples in other places. Pretty obvious.
>Random man has genes that could also be found in Celts
No, he belonged to a certain haplogroup. Pic related is a map of haplogroup R1b, and in Western Europe the dominating subclade of R1b is R1b1a2, which is apparently King Tut's haplogroup.
>This would be akin to saying that since green eyes are relatively common in Arabs, that Arabs are therefore Irish related.
Do you think they just "evolved" it completely independently from whites? Do you also think non-whites with blue eyes "evolved" blue eyes completely independently from whites? Why do you think there are people in the Middle East that have blond hair and blue eyes? Did they "evolve" that independently as well? Of course not.
>No, it really doesn't.
Obviously it does. They originally did not regard their foreign non-Egyptian neighbors to be real people. Then, according to the ancient writing, they began to accept foreigners of people. And then several hundred years later, they as a whole believed in universalism. "Foreigner" in those contexts refers to their non-Egyptian, and thus foreign neighbors.
>I can't tell the difference between Koreans and Japanese, but they obviously can. Likewise, I would lump Danes and Swedes in a group unless it became relevant,
Those are all "different groups".
And if the modern Egyptians were identical to the ancient Egyptians, you would expect that it would be more than 2-10%, when a random specimen of an ostensibly Egyptian paternal line happened to have that DNA.
no lad, the barbarian invasions come after the empire
...