# Population Genetics > Y-DNA Haplogroups >  Genetic make-up of France

## Maciamo

France is an ethnically complex country. It is the largest country in Europe. It has been settled or invaded by all the great cultures of Europe : Celts, Basques, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Norses, etc. Furthermore, it is usually accepted that northern France is closer both culturally and ethnically to northern Europe, while the southern part of the country is definitely more southern European in every respect. 

But things get even more complicated once we try to divide France by region according to how people look, or what DNA tests tell us. There is no clear divide between all the peoples that have settled in France in history.

The easiest group to spot are the Basques, around the western Pyrenees, who have managed to keep a strong cultural identity of their own. 

The Bretons are often considered to be the last "Celts" in France. Although they may be the last to speak a Celtic language, genetically they are far from being outsiders like the Basques. In fact, most of France used to be Celtic 2000 years ago, and Celtic genes can still be found in most of the country. 

The most "Celtic" parts of France are the remotest ones, deep into the mountains of the Massif Central, especially in Auvergne and the Cevennes. Brittany is in fact less genuinely Celtic due to the influx of Germanic people from Normandy or Britain.

Notwithstanding a series of invasions by various Germanic tribes (Franks, Burgunds, Visigoths, Danish Vikings...), and territory gained over Germany (Alsace and Lorraine), the only region that is overwhelmingly of Germanic descent is the Nord-Pas-de-Calais, only annexed to France 350 years ago. Normandy, Picardy, Champagne, Lorraine and Alsace have all a lot of Germanic blood, although mixed with indigenous Celtic one.

The Mediterranean coast of France was settled very early by the Greeks, who founded such cities as Nice, Marseilles or Montpellier. This was also the first region of France to come under Roman domination, and to be heavily settled by Roman people. Consequently, most of the people from the Languedoc to the Provence are closer to central Italians and Greeks than to central and northern French people.

But the most surprising of all is to find people who look typically Mediterranean as far north as the Loire Valley, in the traditional provinces of Poitou, Anjou, Tourraine and Berry. This appears to be another region of France heavily settled by the Romans. Tests of the Y-chromosome have shown so far (although at an early stage of research) that a lot of people in this region indeed belonged to haplogroup J2, typical of Greco-Roman people.

Here is a map of the ethnic division of France inspired by Prof. Montandon's work. Names of traditional provinces as well as a few key cities were added for an increased visibility.

----------


## WickedOne

<<France is an ethnically complex country.>>

Name a country that isn't ethnically complex. And please don't say America. Whatever ethnic mix my Euro ancestors brought to the US got passed on to me. So realistically Europeans are no older than Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc. You Euros just think you are more diverse than everyone else.

<<It is the largest country in Europe.>>

I think the key words there are IN EUROPE. To most people outside of Europe (and it may come as a shock to you but there are more people OUTSIDE of Europe than INSIDE), European countries are the size of postage stamps. So it gives us a chance to giggle when Euros call/brag about their countries being big. Well sure France is big . . . if you're comparing it to Rhode Island.  :Wavey: 
It has been settled or invaded by all the great cultures of Europe

----------


## Maciamo

> <<France is an ethnically complex country.>>
> Name a country that isn't ethnically complex. And please don't say America. Whatever ethnic mix my Euro ancestors brought to the US got passed on to me. So realistically Europeans are no older than Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc. You Euros just think you are more diverse than everyone else.


I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. Keep in mind that this is a forum about Europe, so when I said that France is an ethnically diverse country, I meant by European standards. Recent DNA studies have revealed that Europeans are more genetically homogenous than Asians or Africans due to the fairly recent recolonisation of Europe from a few Ice Age refuges 10,000 years ago. In fact, there is more genetic diversity just in India that in all Europe (notwithstanding recent immigrants of course).



> <<It is the largest country in Europe.>>
> I think the key words there are IN EUROPE. To most people outside of Europe (and it may come as a shock to you but there are more people OUTSIDE of Europe than INSIDE), European countries are the size of postage stamps. So it gives us a chance to giggle when Euros call/brag about their countries being big. Well sure France is big . . . if you're comparing it to Rhode Island. 
> It has been settled or invaded by all the great cultures of Europe


I don't see your point. It is obvious that Europe is a tiny continent. It is 3x smaller than the USA. Is that a way for you to brag about how big your country is ? This is a place for serious discussions. If you are not mature enough to understand comparisons and arguments being made, please refrain from posting here.

----------


## billthebutcher

> France is an ethnically complex country. It is the largest country in Europe. It has been settled or invaded by all the great cultures of Europe : Celts, Basques, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Norses, etc. Furthermore, it is usually accepted that northern France is closer both culturally and ethnically to northern Europe, while the southern part of the country is definitely more southern European in every respect. 
> 
> But things get even more complicated once we try to divide France by region according to how people look, or what DNA tests tell us. There is no clear divide between all the peoples that have settled in France in history.
> 
> The easiest group to spot are the Basques, around the western Pyrenees, who have managed to keep a strong cultural identity of their own. 
> 
> The Bretons are often considered to be the last "Celts" in France. Although they may be the last to speak a Celtic language, genetically they are far from being outsiders like the Basques. In fact, most of France used to be Celtic 2000 years ago, and Celtic genes can still be found in most of the country. 
> 
> The most "Celtic" parts of France are the remotest ones, deep into the mountains of the Massif Central, especially in Auvergne and the Cevennes. Brittany is in fact less genuinely Celtic due to the influx of Germanic people from Normandy or Britain.
> ...


Hi Maciamo,

Seems you are also interested in G&A. But please beware of inconsistencies made by anthropologists and historians. 

You say the most Celtic part of France is the "Central zone". But I disagree. Original Celtic region in is Central Europe shared by Southern Germany (especially some parts of Baden-W&#252;rttemberg, higher red hair frequency) and Northern Switzerland. These people are known for their tallness, long heads and light to moderate pigmentations. Very good examples are Edward Norton from the USA and Maria Furtwangler from Bavaria - Germany (Sorry, but I'm not allowed to attach pictures yet).

Many French people from central zones are short, round headed and dark and are perfect examples of the Alpine race which emerged through reduction of large headed, tall Cro-Magnoids.

And your map can't explain which people in the other "colors" live. Who are the violets or yellows? Mixed people of Italy and France or Spain? The Spanish is also Mediterranean, indeed.

Hoping to hear from you soon..

----------


## Maciamo

> Hi Maciamo,
> Seems you are also interested in G&A. But please beware of inconsistencies made by anthropologists and historians. 
> You say the most Celtic part of France is the "Central zone". But I disagree. Original Celtic region in is Central Europe shared by Southern Germany (especially some parts of Baden-W&#252;rttemberg, higher red hair frequency) and Northern Switzerland. These people are known for their tallness, long heads and light to moderate pigmentations. Very good examples are Edward Norton from the USA and Maria Furtwangler from Bavaria - Germany (Sorry, but I'm not allowed to attach pictures yet).
> Many French people from central zones are short, round headed and dark and are perfect examples of the Alpine race which emerged through reduction of large headed, tall Cro-Magnoids.


I know that the "Celtic homeland" is around Baden--W&#252;rttemberg (West Hallstatt and La T&#232;ne area). However, these Celts have expanded and settled in many areas of France as well. I noticed that some people (but not all) in the isolated Auvergne and Cevennes regions of south-central France had quite Celtic features (long head, fair hair, tall stature). The Celts' preference for hilly areas to built oppida may explain that pockets of Celtic lineages survived to this day with minimum intermingling with the darker-haired, rounder-faced and shorter Alpine or Mediterranean types.

I am looking forward to the Y-DNA analysis of remote regions of France to confirm or disprove this theory.

----------


## billthebutcher

Exactly... The pictures you've posted from France are good examples of Celts (this journalist and of course Laetitia Casta, fair hair, fair skin, prominent nose).

I think Maria Furtw&#228;ngler from Munich (M&#252;nchen) is a direct descendant of Celts who had inhabited Central Europe before Germans (better: Germanics) invaded the territory.

Oliver Kahn from Karlsruhe is a stereotypical German, indeed. Note the differences (large head size, very masculine, "sinister" looking, 99% fair eyes, mostly fair hairs, etc...

P.S.: 8 posts remaining, to be allowed URLs and pictures ;)

----------


## Derek Knatchbull

> I know that the "Celtic homeland" is around Baden--W&#252;rttemberg (West Hallstatt and La T&#232;ne area). However, these Celts have expanded and settled in many areas of France as well. I noticed that some people (but not all) in the isolated Auvergne and Cevennes regions of south-central France had quite Celtic features (long head, fair hair, tall stature). The Celts' preference for hilly areas to built oppida may explain that pockets of Celtic lineages survived to this day with minimum intermingling with the darker-haired, rounder-faced and shorter Alpine or Mediterranean types.
> 
> I am looking forward to the Y-DNA analysis of remote regions of France to confirm or disprove this theory.


Lol if the CEVENNES are south-central France then the southern banuiel slums of Paris are north-central France. Geographical logic.

----------


## Maciamo

> Lol if the CEVENNES are south-central France then the southern banuiel slums of Paris are north-central France. Geographical logic.


If you wish. Paris is not really northern. For me northern France is any north of Paris.

----------


## JackMack

> I know that the "Celtic homeland" is around Baden--Württemberg (West Hallstatt and La Tène area). However, these Celts have expanded and settled in many areas of France as well. I noticed that some people (but not all) in the isolated Auvergne and Cevennes regions of south-central France had quite Celtic features (long head, fair hair, tall stature). The Celts' preference for hilly areas to built oppida may explain that pockets of Celtic lineages survived to this day with minimum intermingling with the darker-haired, rounder-faced and shorter Alpine or Mediterranean types.
> 
> I am looking forward to the Y-DNA analysis of remote regions of France to confirm or disprove this theory.


Mediterranean types have longer heads- not round. The round headed individuals belong to the R Haplogroup:
Interestingly, the regions inhabited today by I and J bearers are primarily found on a "corridor" from the Middle East through Asia Minor, the Balkans, Central Europe to Scandinavia. To the west of this region, haplogroup R1b is more important, and to the east, haplogroup R1a1.

This same corridor has also been identified by physical anthropologists in the past as the route by which leptoprosopic southern Europoids migrated into Europe, forming a "wedge" between the indigenous broad-faced northern Europoids. Thus, the strong metrical similarity between modern Nordics (found principally in Scandinavia, a nexus of I concentration), and modern Mediterraneans (from West Asia and Southeastern Europe, a nexus of J concentration) can be interpreted as a consequene of their common descent. This suggestion is not new, having been proposed by Carleton Coon in his _Races of Europe_ in 1939, although dating this common descent was obviously inaccurate before the advent of carbon dating and the molecular clock.

----------


## JackMack

> If you wish. Paris is not really northern. For me northern France is any north of Paris.


That is correct....most people I know with some knowledge of Europe ascribe to this philosophy.

----------


## carpathia

the gauls/celts of ceasars time were described as blonde and much taller, even the WOMEN, than the roman soldiers.. they were also reffered to as very fair complected..
also it was the GERMANS WHO HAD RED HAIR per the romans of that era.. they dyed gaulish slaves hair red to pass them off a germans during gladiator events.

the french of today are seldom blonde, tall, or often even fair complected.

the likelyhood is that the romanization was so thourough the the modern french are similar to the modern aluit in alaska..

today, of all aluit/'eskimos' still living in tribal villages, 85% of their men have a european Y-dna Hg.. the modern population is almost entirely fathered by male caucasians..

the romans describe teaching the women in gaul after conquest, to 'lie down along the road' as their legions passed through.. 
this sounds a lot like keeping the soldiers happy and the women get to stay alive.. and it explains the short dark sometimes olive skinned modern french (similar in appearance to a average italian), where the ancient gauls were of a totally different appearance.

----------


## Smertrius

> the gauls/celts of ceasars time were described as blonde and much taller, even the WOMEN, than the roman soldiers.. they were also reffered to as very fair complected..
> also it was the GERMANS WHO HAD RED HAIR per the romans of that era..


That's only the impression that the northern populations gave to the romans.
French and Germans are not much different from what they looked like 2000 years ago.

----------


## Smertrius

> the romans describe teaching the women in gaul after conquest, to 'lie down along the road' as their legions passed through.. 
> this sounds a lot like keeping the soldiers happy and the women get to stay alive..


That's funny. 
Do you think that the legions stopped their march to rape the 6-7 women they met each 10 km?
A legion it's thousands of men with all an economic system attached to it. Merchants followed them everywhere, and they had enough women and slaves to not stop the troop each time they found a group of villagers.

----------


## Smertrius

> the french of today are seldom blonde, tall, or often even fair complected.
> .. and it explains the short dark sometimes olive skinned modern french (similar in appearance to a average italian)


From what i saw on tv during the Dacia-Renault strikes in Romania, it seems that romanians fit better your description than the French (and i'm living in the southern coast)

----------


## Smertrius

> the likelyhood is that the romanization was so thourough the the modern french are similar to the modern aluit in alaska..
> today, of all aluit/'eskimos' still living in tribal villages, 85% of their men have a european Y-dna Hg.. the modern population is almost entirely fathered by male caucasians..


You have a simplistic reasoning, you believe silly stereotypes, you're posting at 4 AM (2 AM in Romania) and you have an interest in the Aleut tribes. 

Are you an american kid of romanian descent ?

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> From what i saw on tv during the Dacia-Renault strikes in Romania, it seems that romanians fit better your description than the French (and i'm living in the southern coast)


I agree. I don't know what he really means... 

Clearly, there are darker native French people but skin tone runs from very pale to, say, medium olive. The French probably average out to medium tone in complexion. Certainly, they are lighter on average than Eastern Mediterraneans, many Balkan types, Southern and Central Italians and some populations in Southern Iberia.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> the gauls/celts of ceasars time were described as blonde and much taller, even the WOMEN, than the roman soldiers.. they were also reffered to as very fair complected..
> also it was the GERMANS WHO HAD RED HAIR per the romans of that era.. they dyed gaulish slaves hair red to pass them off a germans during gladiator events.
> the french of today are seldom blonde, tall, or often even fair complected.
> the likelyhood is that the romanization was so thourough the the modern french are similar to the modern aluit in alaska..
> today, of all aluit/'eskimos' still living in tribal villages, 85% of their men have a european Y-dna Hg.. the modern population is almost entirely fathered by male caucasians..
> the romans describe teaching the women in gaul after conquest, to 'lie down along the road' as their legions passed through.. 
> this sounds a lot like keeping the soldiers happy and the women get to stay alive.. and it explains the short dark sometimes olive skinned modern french (similar in appearance to a average italian), where the ancient gauls were of a totally different appearance.



Can you provide the research sources you are using?

----------


## Smertrius

Don't forget that 58% of the french claim a foreign ancestry. If you take apart the 30% who are from north african and black african descent, and those who have one parent or grandparent mainly from spanish, portuguese, or south italian descent (Garcia is the n°1 surname in Languedoc for example), it's difficult to find real "ethnic french" in the big cities today. But those who are, are really different from the common stereotype the americans have about us. I think it's the same for every country, the "spanish/moor" stereotype is another funny one.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Don't forget that 58% of the french claim a foreign ancestry. If you take apart the 30% who are from north african and black african descent, and those who have one parent or grandparent mainly from south european descent (Garcia is the n°1 surname in Languedoc for example), it's difficult to find real "ethnic french" in the big cities today. But those who are, are really different from the common stereotype the americans have about us. I think it's the same for every country, the "spanish/moor" stereotype is another funny one.


I meant only NATIVE, or native origin French. I'm not counting non-European, etc. 

Believe me, I know about stereotypes... People from the U.S. visit Northern Spain and Northern Portugal and they are surprised by how light people are in this region. In Portugal / Galicia and in the U.S., Americans many times ask me if I'm not English or Irish. I just tell them to visit Spain and Portugal and find out what REAL Iberians look like...  :Wink:

----------


## Smertrius

_edited...._

----------


## Smertrius

_edited...._

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

What happened to Smertrius' last two posts?

----------


## Smertrius

I deleted them.
I don't want to fall into that light/dark antropologic stuff that i find so pathetic... :Useless: 

The only thing i have to say is that the "real" french are the ones who still live in the remote countrysides. The rest of the country has seen so many waves of internal or foreign migrations that it is no more representative of anything today.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> I deleted them.
> I don't want to fall into that light/dark antropologic stuff that i find so pathetic...
> 
> The only thing i have to say is that the "real" french are the ones who still live in the countryside. The cities have seen so many waves of internal or foreign migrations that they are no more significative of anything today.


Ok, I hear you. It is rather ridiculous - this nonsense about who is lighter or darker.

----------


## Marianne

> I deleted them.
> 
> The only thing i have to say is that the "real" french are the ones who still live in the remote countrysides. The rest of the country has seen so many waves of internal or foreign migrations that it is no more representative of anything today.



I think that is a general rule for most countries  :Smile: 

When I visited Paris first time, a big percentage of the people I saw were non native French people. Many were clearly Northern/Southern Africans and some definately mixed. 
The picture was different outside Paris, at the countryside, where people looked more like what I have in mind when I think of French and clearly there were less non-French people. I didn't visit Southern France though where people probably look like typical Mediterraneans.

It's the same in Greece. If you visit the center of Athens you will see only immigrands, Near Eastern or Africans. You get the impression that you are in a different country because most of the Greeks that live in Athens have moved to the suburbs.

----------


## carpathia

> Can you provide the research sources you are using?


 
1)Tacitus tells of the germans appearance-

Tacitus wrote: "For my own part, I agree with those who think that the tribes of Germany are free from all taint of intermarriages with foreign nations, and that they appear as a distinct, unmixed race, like none but themselves. Hence, too, the same physical peculiarities throughout so vast a population. **All** have fierce blue eyes, **red hair**, huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion.."

2)roman Tacitus AGAIN ON GERMANS and their appearance(as well as britains)- 

Who were the original inhabitants of Britain, whether they were indigenous or foreign, is as usual among barbarians, little known. Their physical characteristics are various, and from these conclusions may be drawn. **The red hair and large limbs of the inhabitants of Caledonia point clearly to a German origin**

3) 
"[126] It was in this same year that Domitian made his pompous expedition
into Germany, from whence he returned without ever seeing the enemy.

[127] Caligula in like manner **got a number of tall men with their hair
dyed red to give credit to a pretended victory over the Germans**."

4) 
"Emporer Caius proclaimed with the intent of making his triumph more imposing, captives and deserters from *Gaul* and **caused them to *dye* their *hair red*, and to assume *German* names**. Domitian did the same thing."

(My personal adendum-
The unmixed germans of ceasars time looked rather uniformly as Boris Becker would look today.. his phenotype is not the common appearance of that population in our times, however, nor would it be representative neccesarily of the SORBS or WENDS who compose a large part of the modern german states ancestry pool.)

ON THE GAULS-

1) *Ammianus Marcellinus* (330-400 AD) writes : "_The Gauls are generally tall, with white skin, **blond hair** and frightful and ferocious eyes._ _Their mood is quarrelsome and extremely arrogant. "_

_2)_Diodorus Siculus ON Gauls Celts-
"Their aspect is terrifying . . . They are very tall in stature, with ripling muscles under clear white skin. Their **hair is blond, but not naturally so: they bleach it**, to this day, artificially, washing it in lime and combing it back" 

Height of EVEN Gaulish WOMEN exceeds roman MALES-

"*The Gallic women are not only equal to their husbands in stature but rival them in strength as well." ~Diodorus Siculus*

*A 'bonus'-*

Suggestion to explain modern Britain's AMH Ht over-concentration (unintentionally) explained / Ceasars Gallic wars-

"Ten and even twelve have wives common to them, and particularly brothers share wives with brothers, and fathers with their sons; "

*Conclusion-*
The modern construct of German=Blond, and Celt / Gaul=Red hair, is basically a NDSAP eugenics construct, from a time when even the Irish were often claimed (rediculously) as not europeans.. the history of these populations at the onset of their conquest is documented well by romans. This is not a exhaustive list of citations.. but it gets point across that the modern phentypic constructs of today do not at all mirror the assumptions of the times we infer our own impressions upon. 

LASTLY- to the posters who are concerned over the complexion of gauls, romanians, etc.. 
I make no remark on appearance to OFFEND.. 

the reality IS romanians are generally darker than most nothern/western europeans, we are composed of celts, slavs, romans, turks, and as such this is not to be surprised, but the Y-dna Hg is overwhelmingly european for us, as it is for the shorter/darker modern gallo-roman french.
All europeans are my brothers, and I care not what your complexion is, but the reality is, modern french do not in any way resemble the rather uniform appearance of the tribal gauls, nor the do the modern germans resemble the uniform appearance of the tribal germanic peoples, so if you have a explanation OTHER than wholesale intermixture with invading/surrounding population with dominant/darker phenotype, be my guest.. 
BTW, I tried to post links to quotes, and your system will not let me as I have too few posts to be accepted..

----------


## Smertrius

LOL

5) Virgil, on the Gauls :
Aurea caesaries ollis atque aurea vestis;
Tum lactae colla aurem innectuntur;

6) Cesar, on the Germans :
The high stature of the germans, their faces and the glare of their eyes which many times in our incounters have been insupportable...

The difference between you and me is that you believe every word the classicals said.
Come on, the germans were not all red haired blue eyed, the gauls were not all tall blond blue eyed, nor the women as tall and strong as the men... 
They were tall and blond by roman standards, who imagined a fierce blond warrior when they thought about a gaul while the majority was peacefull peasants. It’s the same today with people who will think about a certain stereotype when they think about a french, a german, a romanian or an italian. Btw, some gauls bleached their hair, you already mentioned it.

Now just leave the laughable Tacitus and co, and tell me more about the graves: Where are those giants you’re talking about ? In their burials the gauls average about 1,70m or around 1,75 for the tallest, much more than the roman who thus saw them as very tall. 
The French average for the men is 1,77m : we are taller than the Gauls...

Same for the hair color, black hair being rare in some regions while fair hair are more common, the romans had an impression of blondness which led to the ancient stereotype about the gauls. The majority of the ancient poets and "historians (lol)" used older descriptions who were for the most part testimonies heard from greek and latin merchants.

Now for the concern about complexions, who came in this thread saying "it explains the short dark sometimes olive skinned modern french (similar in appearance to a average italian)" ? Have you ever been to France or Italy (or Europe ?) for intelligence's sake ? 
Who seems to care so much about the mythical appearance of Gauls and Germans ? As far as I know romanians have very little to do with them, so what’s the reason of your posts and all these quotes about peoples who are not part of your history ?

You sound so american... If you want to know what the Gauls and Germans looked like, just travel to France and Germany.

----------


## Smertrius

> I think that is a general rule for most countries 
> When I visited Paris first time, a big percentage of the people I saw were non native French people. Many were clearly Northern/Southern Africans and some definately mixed. 
> The picture was different outside Paris, at the countryside, where people looked more like what I have in mind when I think of French and clearly there were less non-French people. I didn't visit Southern France though where people probably look like typical Mediterraneans.
> It's the same in Greece. If you visit the center of Athens you will see only immigrands, Near Eastern or Africans. You get the impression that you are in a different country because most of the Greeks that live in Athens have moved to the suburbs.


The problem is that the regional cultures and languages have been destroyed.
In my family for example, my mother was the first to grow in an only french speaking environment, my father and grandparents' mother language was not french. If you come to South France in Provence or Languedoc, because of heliotropism (northerners moving to the south) and the proximity of Spain and Italy, the original culture have disapeared with the people. Provençal language and traditions are already dead, even the famous "accent du midi" has faded, from Bandol to Antibes (between Marseilles and Nice) people speak like parisians (and so do i)...

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> LOL
> 
> 5) Virgil, on the Gauls :
> Aurea caesaries ollis atque aurea vestis;
> Tum lactae colla aurem innectuntur;
> 
> 6) Cesar, on the Germans :
> The high stature of the germans, their faces and the glare of their eyes which many times in our incounters have been insupportable...
> 
> ...


Indeed. Strange that a Romanian would be so concerned with Gauls / Celts / Germanics. Certainly, Romanians have no connections to Gauls / Celts and very little as regards Germanics.

----------


## carpathia

> LOL
> 
> 
> The difference between you and me is that you believe every word the classicals said.
> Come on, the germans were not all red haired blue eyed, the gauls were not all tall blond blue eyed, nor the women as tall and strong as the men... 
> They were tall and blond by roman standards, who imagined a fierce blond warrior when they thought about a gaul while the majority was peacefull peasants.... 
> 
> ....Now for the concern about complexions, who came in this thread saying "it explains the short dark sometimes olive skinned modern french (similar in appearance to a average italian)" ? Have you ever been to France or Italy (or Europe ?) for intelligence's sake ? 
> Who seems to care so much about the mythical appearance of Gauls and Germans ? As far as I know romanians have very little to do with them, so what’s the reason of your posts and all these quotes about peoples who are not part of your history ?
> ...


If you have not noticed, 
I have posted in quite a number of threads here that I found proffering entirely disproved 'facts' concerning current european genetics findings, which is also my field of professional study.. 
THIS thread is one I posted in, again, as it offers 'facts' that are opposite the _historical record_ in this case, _as opposed to the scientific / genetics reality_ of what is today known.

You are angered by information that you do not wish to hear, so instead of addressing this issue you have, you strike out at contemporaneous sources that you seek to impeach, as well as undertake to impeach ME personally, as you have little else to fall back upon.

IF the roman sources that actually encountered these populations prior to their intermixing had made the same phenotypical allegations of uniformity in appearance concerning ALL of the romans opponents of that time period, you COULD then impeach the contemporaneous sources as simply seeking to make fantastic, unsupported claims- the problem for your argument is, the romans fought-
*Dacians (my own people),* 
Bulgars, 
Avars, 
Huns, 
Spanish tribes,
Persians, 
Ligurians (pre-empire), etc.. 

and on, and on... _and they made NO such phenotypical claims concerning the appearance or uniformity of appearance of ANY of these other populations as having a uniform size, skin color, hair color, that was not already within routine standards for the roman world_..

The reality is, the germans again, and again, are referred to by ancient sources as a unmixed population, isolated people, without cities, that had little outside contact ,
(which would also be needed to standardise a highly recessive trait such as red hair)
..and a standard red hair color, seldom found in the roman world.
Isolated and unmixed euro populations in remote areas, traditionally ahve the highest appearance of RECCESIVE TRAITS like blond or red hair, as they have no dominant traits entering into the closed population to mask the recessive features..
Scandianvia,
Ireland, 
Scottish highlands,
pre-contact Germany / Gaul,

all were perfect containers for reccesive traits to be established and standardized until infusion of outside blood brought in the dominant traits so often encountered throughout the roman world. So, the roman assertions actually are 'MENDELLIAN' in their occurance and reportage. 

*Whether you even believe the roman sources is totally seperate from whether the modern assertions of blond=german / red=gaul were the common belief of the ancient world.. in fact, as is now proven, that was the reverse of the assumption at that time.*

Today, the misinformed identify blond hair with germans, but in the actual time period that the germans tribes were first encountered this was *not* at all the case.. *Also today, a large portion of modern germanys population is Sorbs and Wends(east), who would not have been considered German to the Romans, or even in the Middle ages for that matter.. so we know they have heavy introgression from at least two huge populations, ALONG WITH the heavily romanized Bavarians(south)*, who would not have been genetically present among the Germans the romans first encountered. 

The romans also correctly noted tha total lack of cities among the germans pre-contact, as well as the significant urbanization among the Gauls pre-contact, which also played heavily into the ability to decisively defeat the concentrations of Gauls, while the de-centralized germans had the opportunity to give battle only when advantageous. 

This is archaeologically confirmable as well.. we know of alesia, etc.. 

You claimed, we dig up skeletal remains and find only short men, these few bodies you find may be a romanized individual already, you know nothing of him, carbon dating is only useful within a time / date range, nor are you accounting that a moderate height individual today, would be very tall to a short roman of the 54 A.D., who was smaller than his modern descendant.. 

As to my concern for the appearance of the ancient gaulish/german tribes.. it is not a concern. 
Correcting unknowing people asserting provably inaccurate information on a web site that also asserts to have all the accurate genetic information concerning ancient european populations IS my concern, as while it makes no difference to me a german//gauls appearance... 
the foisting of this bad information from a HISTORICAL perspective, which is so readily available to all informed people and requires no scientific grasp, is indicative of what nonsense is being sold from those purporting to provide 'scientific' information on current genetics conclusions.. 

You would do well to take less offence and be more concerned for facts than some ill-based conclusion you have drawn.. also *YES I have been to france and sadly, very sadly, i tell you, that I would not have thought i was even in europe based on the morrocan bazaar population I encountered*- it is very sad you let your country be overrun and destroyed- the future of europe will be in the east I am afraid as the french threw away their manhood in endless battles with germany only to then at the conclusion give itself away to endless hordes of 'new mongols' from outside of europe.

----------


## carpathia

> Indeed. Strange that a Romanian would be so concerned with Gauls / Celts / Germanics. Certainly, Romanians have no connections to Gauls / Celts and very little as regards Germanics.


Sir, as to romania and celts..

I should recommend that before you open your mouth on a topic, you may want to first appraise yourself of the facts..
There are celtic archaeological sites all over Romania, and the celts are a strong basis of our genetics.. I am R1b, my cousin. The romanian language is a romance language NOT a slavic tongue please remember.

Also, most of those 'romanians' that the west encounters are the despicable Gypsies who are of descendants of migrants from india, and are not romanian or european..
These people are not flocking out to benefit from the EU open borders and they are now the problem for all of you that they have long been for us actual romanians..

I an few decades their will be Roma gypsies calling themsleves 'french' etc.. since they live in your nation also now.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> Sir, as to romania and celts..
> 
> I should recommend that before you open your mouth on a topic, you may want to first appraise yourself of the facts..
> There are celtic archaeological sites all over Romania, and the celts are a strong basis of our genetics.. I am R1b, my cousin. The romanian language is a romance language NOT a slavic tongue please remember.
> 
> Also, most of those 'romanians' that the west encounters are the despicable Gypsies who are of descendants of migrants from india, and are not romanian or european..
> These people are not flocking out to benefit from the EU open borders and they are now the problem for all of you that they have long been for us actual romanians..
> 
> I an few decades their will be Roma gypsies calling themsleves 'french' etc.. since they live in your nation also now.


I'm well aware that Celtic tribes were in Romania. However, from everything I have read, their impact was minimal. Certainly not to be compared with what occurred in Atlantic Europe, where you had "saturated" Celtic settlement for many, many centuries.

----------


## Smertrius

> You are angered by information that you do not wish to hear, so instead of addressing this issue you have, you strike out at contemporaneous sources that you seek to impeach, as well as undertake to impeach ME personally, as you have little else to fall back upon.


What?!





> The reality is, the germans again, and again, are referred to by ancient sources as a unmixed population, isolated people, without cities, that had little outside contact ,
> (which would also be needed to standardise a highly recessive trait such as red hair)
> ..and a standard red hair color, seldom found in the roman world.
> Isolated and unmixed euro populations in remote areas, traditionally ahve the highest appearance of RECCESIVE TRAITS like blond or red hair, as they have no dominant traits entering into the closed population to mask the recessive features..
> Scandianvia,
> Ireland, 
> Scottish highlands,
> pre-contact Germany / Gaul,
> 
> ...


Wow... Man, no offense, but i think that you have a problem...





> IF the roman sources that actually encountered these populations prior to their intermixing had made the same phenotypical allegations of uniformity in appearance concerning ALL of the romans opponents of that time period, you COULD then impeach the contemporaneous sources as simply seeking to make fantastic, unsupported claims- the problem for your argument is, the romans fought-
> *Dacians (my own people),* 
> Bulgars, 
> Avars, 
> Huns, 
> Spanish tribes,
> Persians, 
> Ligurians (pre-empire), etc.. 
> 
> and on, and on... _and they made NO such phenotypical claims concerning the appearance or uniformity of appearance of ANY of these other populations as having a uniform size, skin color, hair color, that was not already within routine standards for the roman world_..


What uniformity of appearance? Land down and stop your racial purity dream please. All your nazi like theory is based on 2-3 quotes from pseudo-historian like Tacite who never went to Germany! And then you talk about "entirely disproved facts concerning currents european genetic findings"? Where's your scientific mind? Who draw ill-based conclusion?
Cesar fought the batavi, ubii, tencteri, suevi, harudes, usipi, etc... one and a half century before Tacite's nonsense and he never said that the Germans were red haired. Hirtius and Cesar are much more reliable. He came, he saw, he won...

Now about the Gauls... They were mixed from the bigining, i already said it in the celt in Iberia and italo-celtic expansion threads.
Celtic tribes sacked Rome, looted Delphes, went everywhere from Portugal to Turkey, they were the prototype of the northern barbarian, so is it too difficult to understand that the giant fierce terrifying blond warrior caricature the ancient greeks and romans drawn, was just a caricature? Use your brain.





> This is archaeologically confirmable as well.. we know of alesia, etc..


Currently, what we know about Alesia is that we still don't know where it really is...





> You claimed, we dig up skeletal remains and find only short men, these few bodies you find may be a romanized individual already, you know nothing of him, carbon dating is only useful within a time / date range


1,70m is short for you? How tall do you think they were? 2,10m?
And how do you think we know about Hallstatt and La Tène cultures? Because of the materials archeologists found in the graves, there are numerous archeological sites from the iron ages and there is no romanized people involved. We have a clear datation for these cultures, and carbon14 is not the only datation method known for archeology. 

One example, the Senons, the ones who were about to destroy Rome and the first Gauls the romans had to fight. They were a La Tène tribe, probably related to the Senons in France who thus moved in Italy. What can we say about them? There is a continuity with the precedent people, they occupied the same places, same cemeteries, and their art is highly influenced by the Umbrian tribes, to the point that we can talk about a celticised umbrian tribe more than a umbrianised celtic tribe. 
Nothing giant in their skeletons, and they were described such. Same applies for the rest of the Gauls.




> As to my concern for the appearance of the ancient gaulish/german tribes.. it is not a concern. 
> Correcting unknowing people asserting provably inaccurate information on a web site that also asserts to have all the accurate genetic information concerning ancient european populations IS my concern, as while it makes no difference to me a german//gauls appearance... 
> the foisting of this bad information from a HISTORICAL perspective, which is so readily available to all informed people and requires no scientific grasp, is indicative of what nonsense is being sold from those purporting to provide 'scientific' information on current genetics conclusions.. 
> 
> You would do well to take less offence and be more concerned for facts than some ill-based conclusion you have drawn.. also *YES I have been to france and sadly, very sadly, i tell you, that I would not have thought i was even in europe based on the morrocan bazaar population I encountered*- it is very sad you let your country be overrun and destroyed- the future of europe will be in the east I am afraid as the french threw away their manhood in endless battles with germany only to then at the conclusion give itself away to endless hordes of 'new mongols' from outside of europe.


No comment.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> What?!
> Wow... Man, no offense, but i think that you have a problem...
> What uniformity of appearance? Land down and stop your racial purity dream please. All your nazi like theory is based on 2-3 quotes from pseudo-historian like Tacite who never went to Germany! And then you talk about "entirely disproved facts concerning currents european genetic findings"? Where's your scientific mind? Who draw ill-based conclusion?
> Cesar fought the batavi, ubii, tencteri, suevi, harudes, usipi, etc... one and a half century before Tacite's nonsense and he never said that the Germans were red haired. Hirtius and Cesar are much more reliable. He came, he saw, he won...
> Now about the Gauls... They were mixed from the bigining, i already said it in the celt in Iberia and italo-celtic expansion threads.
> Celtic tribes sacked Rome, looted Delphes, went everywhere from Portugal to Turkey, they were the prototype of the northern barbarian, so is it too difficult to understand that the giant fierce terrifying blond warrior caricature the ancient greeks and romans drawn, was just a caricature? Use your brain.
> Currently, what we know about Alesia is that we still don't know where it really is...
> 1,70m is short for you? How tall do you think they were? 2,10m?
> And how do you think we know about Hallstatt and La Tène? Because of the materials we found in the graves. One example, the Senons, the one who were about to destroy Rome. They were a La Tène tribe, probably related to the Senons in France who thus moved in Italy. What’s celtic about them? There is a continuity with the precedent people, they occupied the same places, same cemeteries, and their art is highly influenced by the Umbrian tribes, to the point that we can talk about a celticised umbrian tribe more than a umbrianised celtic tribe.
> No comment.


WOW! Strange goings on...

----------


## Smertrius

What do you mean?

He came, he saw, he won --> i think that it's clear for people that i refer to the most popular quote of Cesar _veni, vidi, vici_ (i went i saw i won). I mean that Cesar knew what he was talking about.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

I was referring to the recent exchanges on this thread...

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> What do you mean?
> 
> He came, he saw, he won --> i think that it's clear for people that i refer to the most popular quote of Cesar _veni, vidi, vici_ (i went i saw i won). I mean that Cesar knew what he was talking about.


No problem with what you wrote at all. I was referring to the tone of the exchange, that's all.

----------


## Smertrius

The problem is that carpathia is refuting genetic findings because of the lack of proofs (and basically i agree with him), and then he builds all a crazy theory about the Germans and the Gauls, based on sayings that are obviously false...

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

> The problem is that Carpathia is refuting genetics finding because of the lack of proofs (and basically i agree with him), and then he build all a crazy theory about the germans and the Gauls, based on sayings that are obviously false...


I agree. His "argument" as regards the Gauls and Germans is disjointed and relies on untenable "evidence".

----------


## Smertrius

I edited my post, after reading it twice there was some unrelated things.

----------


## carpathia

> The problem is that carpathia is refuting genetic findings because of the lack of proofs (and basically i agree with him), and then he builds all a crazy theory about the Germans and the Gauls, based on sayings that are obviously false...


you are arguing every side of the case.. my entire argument is that todays French are heavily intermixed and not representative of ealier celtic french populations...

YOU took offense at that and protested such was not the case, although is post #6, a assertion is made that ones celtic bonafides can be attributed to fair hair and tall stature.. 
this assertion was made by the moderator, yet you did not protest-

_"I noticed that some people (but not all) in the isolated Auvergne and Cevennes regions of south-central France had quite Celtic features (long head, fair hair, tall stature). The Celts' preference for hilly areas to built oppida may explain that pockets of Celtic lineages survived to this day with minimum intermingling with the darker-haired, rounder-faced and shorter Alpine or Mediterranean types."_


whether the popular opinion in 54 A.D. was wrong or right, the public consensus/opinion at the time was of a generalized appearance for the two populations- you nor anyone else need not accept that historical popular impression as factual, which is fine, but I suggest you show consistency in your challenge..

----------


## Smertrius

> you are arguing every side of the case..


When i say: "_The problem is that carpathia is refuting genetic findings because of the lack of proofs (and basically i agree with him)_" i refer to this: "_I have posted in quite a number of threads here that I found proffering entirely disproved 'facts' concerning current european genetics findings, which is also my field of professional study.._ " and not to the rest of your genetic explanations.





> my entire argument is that todays French are heavily intermixed and not representative of ealier celtic french populations...


Well, I may not have been clear enough so I'll try to explain myself better about the French, the Gauls, and the Celts.

1)The French are not heavily intermixed with the romans nor with anyone else. The germanic element is strong in the north and the Greco-roman one is important in the southern coast too (because of important trade relations rather than intensive colonisation) but for the rest of the country the people is basically the same as the Gauls.

2)Now who were the Gauls? They were for the big majority celticised indigenous peoples, like the other celtic tribes everywhere else in Europe. The Celts who brought the Hallstatt and La Tène cultures from South Germany and North East France didn't settle massively in the rest of the country, but by the time of the roman conquest there was a cultural and linguistic (apart from dialectal variations) unity among them, even if there was never a political one.

The first descriptions of the Gauls made by the Romans come from the Cisalpine Gauls who were also celticised peoples (among which the Senons who sacked Rome). They were in average taller, blonder, and more brutal than the Romans, who were rather disciplinized and had only faced other italian populations. Hence the stereotype of the tall terrifying Gaul. But it doesn’t mean that there were not smaller, dark haired gauls.

Now for the "real" Celts, they are a mix of the indoeuropean populations who settled in Central Europe with the indigenous peoples who were already living there. It's a complex process which led to the emergence of the cultures of Hallstatt and La Tène which we identify with the term celt and the celtic language. 

I don't know much about the Germans, but I imagine that germanisation occurred in the same way that celticisation (maybe to a lesser extent).




> YOU took offense at that and protested such was not the case, although is post #6, a assertion is made that ones celtic bonafides can be attributed to fair hair and tall stature.. 
> this assertion was made by the moderator, yet you did not protest-
> _"I noticed that some people (but not all) in the isolated Auvergne and Cevennes regions of south-central France had quite Celtic features (long head, fair hair, tall stature). The Celts' preference for hilly areas to built oppida may explain that pockets of Celtic lineages survived to this day with minimum intermingling with the darker-haired, rounder-faced and shorter Alpine or Mediterranean types."_


These posts are one year old... I replied to yours because you posted it "today" and because of the "historical" reasons you gave.
Now about this quote of Maciamo, he noticed among peoples in the Massif Central region a normal variation which exist everywhere, and tries a personal explanation which I desagree with. You don't need to be celtic to have the features he describes.

----------


## carpathia

> When i say: "_The problem is that carpathia is refuting genetic findings because of the lack of proofs (and basically i agree with him)_" i refer to this: "_I have posted in quite a number of threads here that I found proffering entirely disproved 'facts' concerning current european genetics findings, which is also my field of professional study.._ " and not to the rest of your genetic explanations. 
> 
> 
> Well, I may not have been clear enough so I'll try to explain myself better about the French, the Gauls, and the Celts.
> 
> 1)The French are not heavily intermixed with the romans nor with anyone else. The germanic element is strong in the north and the Greco-roman one is important in the southern coast too (because of important trade relations rather than intensive colonisation) but for the rest of the country the people is basically the same as the Gauls.
> 
> 2)Now who were the Gauls? They were for the big majority celticised indigenous peoples, like the other celtic tribes everywhere else in Europe. 
> The first descriptions of the Gauls made by the Romans come from the Cisalpine Gauls who were also celticised peoples (among which the Senons who sacked Rome). They were in average taller, blonder, and more brutal than the Romans, who were rather disciplinized and had only faced other italian populations. Hence the stereotype of the tall terrifying Gaul. But it doesn’t mean that there were not smaller, dark haired gauls.
> ...


1)It seems that your overall point of aversion, is to a assertion that the modern french do not PHYSICALLY LOOK like the historical Gauls. This was essentially your inital main point of dissention. 
This entire discussion I think became sidetracked to phenotypic details because of your instinctive aversion to this concept..

2)You add in this reply that the Italian-Roman population is not a significant component of modern french genetics. 

3)You then add that there is a indigenous euro component combined with a immigrant 'true' celtic component that together create the gaulish (and other) celtic populations.. 

These are your opinions, and your are entitled to them. I fully disagree that any are factually based, or extend beyond theory. 

*The only means to ESTABLISH a recessive dominant population in the first place, is TO ISOLATE IT.. this is a direct off-shoot of "MENDELLIAN INHERITANCE".* Asian, african, typical traits / appearance etc.. are all examples of a phenotype (_although a mendellian-dominant phenotype_) becoming established through mendellian inheritance.

This is not to assert that every single individual without any exception in a given population throughout an entire historical period, has a EXACT specific appearance in common, 
but that a given phenotype was the norm in that population, to a degree that established it as self-perpetuating. This is even more a IMPERATIVE requirement when considering RECESSIVE TRAITS, which is the whole focus here. 

As CAUCASIANS are the only human populations on EARTH that, unmixed, select for recessive phenotypic traits, 
I.E.- blondism/red hair, 
blue/green eyes,..

_From a medellian perspective these could only become fixed if AT SOME TIME/LOCATION/POINT a reservior population was established to self-perpetuate the recessive features.._ 
this is not opinion, nor is it encumbent upon acceptance of the accuracy of roman sources..

*while it IS TRUE that this reservior population NEED NOT be the historical gauls or german tribal groups,* 
*or for that matter it does not establish that these two populations were not simply successors to this source population of this mendellian reservior,* 

*SOMEWHERE there was a reservior population historically, based not on my opinion, but on the laws of genetic inheritance.*

The Gauls and Germans pre-contact were in my opinion composed in large part of descendants of this reservior. 
This is not a insistance that a variation in individuals was not still present, but not enough to skew the overall population phenotype.

_As the pct of that recessive population reservior DECREASES, the manifestation of the recessive traits will subside.. this again, is consistent with the laws of mendellian inheritance.._

So, these are, up to the onset of the historical record, two rather isolated populations that are from many sources reffered to as composed of a significant recessive reservior and if in your idealogy, that is not acceptable or stirs impression of some sort of exclusivity etc.. that is fine you need not accept it as concerns these two populations...

*BUT...*


* YOU ARE LEFT WITH AGAIN THE SAME ORIGINAL PROBLEM,..* which is if the germans and gauls are not either the progenitors of this recessive reservior as you oppose, or the descendents of this recessive reservior as you attach/suspect some unacceptable conotation apparently,...

then that still does not change the fact that without such a recessive reservior population SOMEWHERE,.. the traits would not establish or promulgate themselves, as they failed to do EVERYWHERE ELSE among the human populations of earth.. 

So, in conlusion, we are far afield the original point(s), BUT-

the historicity of the gauls/germans phenotype + the need for a reservior pool population to fix a recessive trait communally 
(not exclusive to one specific descendent pool -i.e. gauls or germans), *...requires such a pool*

Whether you accept or not that the specific euro pre-contact tribal groups composed that pool in part, or not, is irrelevant, as they at minimum were inheritors of the pool in large enough proportion to create continuity to the satisfaction of contemorary sources, and into modern times, while other global unmixed populations do not sustain such recessive phenotypes. 

the end.

----------


## Smertrius

What's wrong with you? Each time you post you say that I am either "offended(3x)" or "angered", that I have an "aversion(2x)" or that I want to "impeach YOU personally", while I just tell you the truth! 

Even when I try to summarize calmly, you are so obsessed with some silly quotes and your reservoir population invention, that you keep shouting in bolded capital letters...





> the end.


Right, i think that you have been trolling enough for now (not only in this thread) and that the admins should consider to ban you.

----------


## carpathia

> What's wrong with you? Each time you post you say that I am either "offended(3x)" or "angered", that I have an "aversion(2x)" or that I want to "impeach YOU personally", while I just tell you the truth! 
> 
> Even when I try to summarize calmly, you are so obsessed with some silly quotes and your reservoir population invention, that you keep shouting in bolded capital letters...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, i think that you have been trolling enough for now (not only in this thread) and that the admins should consider to ban you.


my bold characters were a means of adding emphasis, as in, 'this in particular is of import', not shouting as you percieve.

If I am 'trolling' and my statements, are valueless as you assert, then they would mean nothing to you and you would simply ignore me. 

You apparently cannot ignore me,
so something in my statement is particularly troubling to you. 

You have every right to countermand my opinion with your own, and I would not momentarily consider demanding your silencing/removal.

You would be a valued convert, like-minded, to our islamic friends with your desire to dictate to others what they can and cannot say/do. 

Here, in reclamation of my time, I will do as you demand, *but I will ban myself from this site*. good wishes to you sir and to all the other members I have enjoyed the time to converse with.

----------


## Smertrius

> my bold characters were a means of adding emphasis, as in, 'this in particular is of import', not shouting as you percieve.


*GROW UP, YOU DON'T NEED ALL THESE BOLD CARACTERS, UNDERLINES, AND CAPITAL LETTERS TO BE SURE THAT PEOPLE WILL PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.*





> You apparently cannot ignore me,
> so something in my statement is particularly troubling to you.


Indeed, some of your theories are really troubling.





> You have every right to countermand my opinion with your own, and I would not momentarily consider demanding your silencing/removal.


I'm not demanding anyone's removal because of his opinions, I just think that your trolling statements are not at the right place here. 





> You would be a valued convert, like-minded, to our islamic friends


That's one of the things that make me think that you're trolling.

----------


## Sybilla

In Italy we call French "our cousins beyond the Alps". I dunno if they share this point of view. We do it becouse French Celts and Northern Italian Celts were the same people (Gauls) and Roman historicians proved that they continued to have contacts and to help each others againts Rome.
Corsica was Italian until the XVIII century, when Tuscany sold the Isle to France. Corses, yet, still remain ethnically Italians.
End endly, Southern France is close in history to Italy. We feel not so similar to Normans, Bretons, Alacians, but Southern France, in particular Provence, is considered the twin of Italy.
The map confirms that parts of France are close to Northern Italy (violet) and other to central Italy (red).
Btw I'd like to visit Provence this summer to see if the atmosphere is really Latin. :P

----------


## Yorkie

Until we have a satisfactory genetic survey of France, we will not be able to analyse the 'genetic make-up' of the country. I suspect that a credible survey of Normandy might reveal echoes of Rollo's Danes and Norwegians [especially Norwegians around the Cotentin], but until that day comes it is all speculation and conjecture.

Am I correct too in believing that commercial genetic testing is presently illegal in France?

----------


## spongetaro

I once heard that people living under the River Loire wre not consider "French" by Northern French people

----------


## Sybilla

> I once heard that people living under the River Loire wre not consider "French" by Northern French people


And what are they considered?

----------


## Reinaert

Well.. France is named after the tribe called "Franks". But they were only the ruling class in the north of France. I guess most French originate from celtic origin. 
The South has been influenced by the Roman period, so you could call that Gallo-Roman.

Especially the Languedoc in the south happened to wealthy and nice to live in.
The northerners saw that with envy. So they started to plunder the south.
And they called that a crusade against the Cathars.

----------


## spongetaro

> And what are they considered?


 
it's an outdated stereotype that goes back to the time were southern French people spoke OC languages (like Catalan, Provençal) while OIL languages were spoke in the North. Standard French is an OIL Language. 

Then there are cultural diffrence. In northern France they used to cook with butter while in the South they cooked with Olive Oil.
I Know that when Nice was annexed to France in 1860, they built a gothic Cathedral because it looked more "French".

----------


## spongetaro

> In Italy we call French "our cousins beyond the Alps". I dunno if they share this point of view. We do it becouse French Celts and Northern Italian Celts were the same people (Gauls) and Roman historicians proved that they continued to have contacts and to help each others againts Rome.
> Corsica was Italian until the XVIII century, when Tuscany sold the Isle to France. Corses, yet, still remain ethnically Italians.
> End endly, Southern France is close in history to Italy. We feel not so similar to Normans, Bretons, Alacians, but Southern France, in particular Provence, is considered the twin of Italy.
> The map confirms that parts of France are close to Northern Italy (violet) and other to central Italy (red).
> Btw I'd like to visit Provence this summer to see if the atmosphere is really Latin. :P


I think that it's not Southern France in general but South Eastern France that is close to Italian culture. French Alp are quite close to Piedmont. Historically, Savoy and Nice belong to the House of Savoy that unified Italy. French was once spoken in Val d'Aoste (Piedmont)
French riviera and Italian Riviera belonged to Liguria in ancient time.
Lombardy was part of Cisalpine Gaul so many of the people there must have French descent. Milano was founded by the Gauls. 

And yes Provence is very Latin. I think it's even more southern italy than Northern Italy.

BTW, South West France is very different

----------


## Sybilla

> I think that it's not Southern France in general but South Eastern France that is close to Italian culture. French Alp are quite close to Piedmont. Historically, Savoy and Nice belong to the House of Savoy that unified Italy. French was once spoken in Val d'Aoste (Piedmont)
> French riviera and Italian Riviera belonged to Liguria in ancient time.
> Lombardy was part of Cisalpine Gaul so many of the people there must have French descent. Milano was founded by the Gauls. 
> 
> And yes Provence is very Latin. I think it's even more southern italy than Northern Italy.
> 
> BTW, South West France is very different


 

In Valle D'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste there's a bilinguistic status, people speak both Italian and French and also if you want to obtain a public job or a degree you must speak both the languages. Piedmont is an other region, 100% Italian and there nobody speaks French, but the aristocracy of Piedmont are mostly of French stock, now mixed with Italians.

I agree that South-East France, Provence and Languedoc, are very Italian, and actually I am almost sure that I'll go there this summer. I want to visit Avignone, Nizze, etc.etc.  :Good Job:  Italian literature was highly influenced by Provencal literature.

And how's South-West France? In Italy South East France is as famous and prestigious as South West is ignote.  :Disappointed: 



In my opinion to be pretty Italian are Languedoc, Provence, Lyon and Corse.

----------


## Maciamo

> And how's South-West France? In Italy South East France is as famous and prestigious as South West is ignote.


South-West France has Bordeaux, Biarritz, the Dordogne region (one of the most beautiful region in France), Rocamadour, Toulouse, Carcassone... It's not as good as the South-East for beaches, but better for wine, foie gras, Paleolithic caves and mysterious places.

----------


## Eochaidh

> South-West France... It's not as good as the South-East for beaches, but better for wine, foie gras, *Paleolithic caves and mysterious places.*


Has anyone here researched the hypotheses that the Solutrean people of South-West France brought the Clovis type arrowhead to North-America during the last Ice Age?

The American PBS station did a show about it with the transcript here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcr..._stoneage.html

What is new is that there is now DNA to link the mtDNA of the Ojibwa of North-America to Europe.




> *NARRATOR:* But Stanford argues that crucial evidence is missing, submerged under 300 feet of wateras rising sea levels inundated the Solutrean coastline at the end of the Ice Age.
> The debate raged on, with arguments for and against the Solutrean theory. Then came evidence that, again, seemed like it might end the battle: DNA.
> It was the latest report from colleagues of Doug Wallace who were investigating early human migrations. They were puzzling over mitochondrial DNA samples from a Native American tribe called the Ojibwa.
> *DOUGLAS WALLACE:* When we studied the mitochondrial DNA of the Ojibwa we found, as we had anticipated, the four primary lineages—A, B, C and D—but there was about a quarter of the mitochondrial DNAs that was not A, B, C and D.
> *NARRATOR:* There was a fifth source of DNA of mysterious origin. They called it X, and unlike A, B, C and D, they couldn't find it anywhere in Siberia or eastern Asia. But it was similar to an uncommon lineage in European populations today. At first, they thought it must be the result of interracial breeding within the last 500 years, sometime after Columbus.
> *DOUGLAS WALLACE:* We naturally assumed that perhaps there had been European recent mixture with the Ojibwa tribe and that some European women had married into the Ojibwa tribe and contributed their mitochondrial DNAs.
> *NARRATOR:* But that assumption proved wrong. When they looked at the amount of variation in the X lineage, it pointed to an origin long before Columbus, in fact, to at least 15,000 years ago. It appeared to be evidence of Ice Age Europeans in America.
> *DOUGLAS WALLACE:* Well, what it says is that a mitochondrial lineage that is predominantly found in Europe somehow got to the Great Lakes region of the Americas 14,000 to 15,000 years ago.
> *NARRATOR:* Could X be genetic evidence of the Solutreans in America? Further investigation raised another possibility. The ancient X lineage may have existed in Siberia, but died out, though not before coming over to America with Ancient migrations.

----------


## spongetaro

> And how's South-West France? In Italy South East France is as famous and prestigious as South West is ignote.



In South East France (Marseille, Nice, Provence) Food is a bite more like Italian food(sea food, olive oil, legume) while in South West Food is much what you would expect as "French" food (foie gras, truffe etc). 

South West French people are a bit stronger than South Eastern French. Almost all clubs of French Rugby League (which is the Best in Europe) are located in South West France. In South East France (especially Marseille and Monaco), football is much popular. 

There is a region in South West France called Dordogne were there are so many English settlers that they are almost as numerous as the local inhabitants. In South East France there are also British settlers, but also many Italians and Russian oligarchs. 

Two Presidents of the Fift Republic originated from South West France (Jacques Chirac and François Mitterand) and ruled France for 26 years from 1981 to 2007

----------


## spongetaro

Oddly, Spanish Catalonia and Spanish Basque country parctice football (the first especially) While French Catalonia and French Basque country are bad in Football but have among the best Rugby team in Europe (Biarritz and Perpignan)

----------


## cowbow

> France is an ethnically complex country. It is the largest country in Europe.


A very common mistake peoples make is to think the Europe is the same thing as European Union...But, in fact, Europe =/= European Union. I guess that mistake is made in the quoted assertion.

Biggest country in Europe is Russia... France is 5th or 3th depending if you ignore or include countries like Kazakhstan & Turkey...

----------


## binx

> If you wish. Paris is not really northern. For me northern France is any north of Paris.



North-central France, he was right.

----------


## binx

> In my opinion to be pretty Italian are Languedoc, Provence, Lyon and Corse.


Corsican is an Italian language, not French. Corsican language derives from Old Tuscan, with strong influences from Ligurian and southern dialects.

While Languedoc and Provence are stricly connected with Gallo-Italic dialects spoken in Western-Northern Italy. Especially, Piedmontese and, probably, Ligurian, Lombard, Emilian.

I don't think Piedmontese are 100% italian. Many piedmontese people share same heritage of Eastern-Southern French. In some western Piedmontese valleys and Aosta Valley French influence is stronger, even today. Valdôtain spoken in Aosta Valley is a form of Franco-Provençal. 

In Italy you can find deep French influences in South Italy too. In some communities in Apulia (Franco-Provençal), in Guardia Piemontese in Calabria (Occitan), in Basilicata (Gallo-Italic of Basilicata), in Sicily (Gallo-Italic of Sicily).

----------


## Alianore

Nations less ethnically diverse than the French (based on mtDNA, Y chromosome and other markers):

Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Spain.

I'm sure many others, those are the ones I'm currently reviewing recent research on. There are websites with piecharts, etc. I don't have them handy on this computer.

The "real" French may or may not live in remote villages. I'd need to hear a definition of "real" to comment. Certainly, people from Brittany regard themselves as somewhat apart from the rest of France (and they do have different percentages of alleles that statistically significant - although not each and every individual does, of course).

And there are many, many people in the Loire Valley whose Y chromosomes go way way back - there are a few I-people still left in France - but does that make them "more real" than a cousin who is R?

----------


## zanipolo

Don't we need to call these southern French languages Occitan of which catalan is a close cousin!

Currently in Cittadella, Veneto , there is a yearly festival with the catalans joining in to share their similar languages and some customs.

maybe this goes back to when the Venetian republic and the kingdom of Aragon traded together in Greece.

----------


## L.D.Brousse

My Family came from the Saintongs region of France former land of the Santone tribe but like the Pictones they became Romanized . The Santones even built a fleet of ships for the Roman invasion of England it's hard to pin point modern Celtic populations when it seems they would adapt to a invading culture some not all

----------


## sparkey

> My Family came from the Saintongs region of France former land of the Santone tribe but like the Pictones they became Romanized . The Santones even built a fleet of ships for the Roman invasion of England it's hard to pin point modern Celtic populations when it seems they would adapt to a invading culture some not all


Same here, for my (tiny as a part of my ancestry... about 1/250 parts) French side. Do you know that your family is ancient in Saintonge? It was very much a gathering place for Huguenots from all over Western France; many came from areas that were not particularly close to settle near the secure walls of La Rochelle. I descend from a family that certainly was in Saintonge at the time that they emigrated, but their surname indicates that they may have more anciently lived in Haute Bretagne.

----------


## L.D.Brousse

The world surname profiler shows the name of Brousse in higher numbers in the Limousin area. I really don't know you can look at my 8th Great Grandfathers Marriage certificate it's all I have to go on in France

----------


## L.D.Brousse

8th Great Grandfathers certificate dated 1690

----------


## zanipolo

> The world surname profiler shows the name of Brousse in higher numbers in the Limousin area. I really don't know you can look at my 8th Great Grandfathers Marriage certificate it's all I have to go on in France


I will try to get you links from my cousin in Toulouse. I cannot promise anything because we can only communicate in writing with he writing in occitan and me writing in venetian. ( about 70% interchangeable).
Toulouse was also in the centre of Hugenot history

----------


## L.D.Brousse

Can anyone translate the certificate in full for me? I can understand some of it but not all Thanks in advance

----------


## razyn

I have a little trouble with the handwriting, and maybe spelling -- not so much with the French, but it's pretty straightforward except for a few words. It's from the parish register of a refugee church, isn't it? Anyway, if you go to Google Maps and enter Saint-Césaire, France for your search, then scale the map so that 5 kilometers is about an inch -- Taillebourg is northwest, and Cognac southeast, in that view. Homes of the bride and groom, before they became refugees.

Here's a draft:

On Sunday thirtieth of March 1690: were presented to the Consistory of this church: Jacques Brousse, Merchant Tanner, son of Elie Brousse and Marthe Allanes, Merchant of the town of Cognac in Saintonge, and Sarra Cornu, daughter of Daniel Cornu and Marie Garnier of the town of Taillebourg, also in Saintonge in the Kingdom of France. Who have requested us to have published in the Temple the news of their Marriage and of the Blessing, pursuant to the Discipline of our Churches. We have agreed to this their announcement with a good heart, in the presence of Jean Tartarin, M(aster?) cooper, and of Mathias Chaigneau, Merchant. All refugees in this town, who have all signed: J. Brousse, Tartarin J., Sara Cornu, M. Chaigneau.

----------


## L.D.Brousse

Thanks a million yes this document was found in London in the archives of the old Huguenot church . Jacques Brousse must have had some pull. In Manikin town he was elected Vestryman and went to plead the case for more supplies for the settlement to survive the winter. There are nobles listed in this group they never would have allowed a commoner to speak for them. Johnny Depp's 7th or 8th Great Grandfather was also in this group. I found naturalization records that shows in 1704 Jacques Brousse became James Bruce which is our surname and his son Perrier became Peter Bruce. These Protestant French could not live in any French colony so we retained none of our French heritage Like they did in Louisiana.

----------


## sparkey

> These Protestant French could not live in any French colony so we retained none of our French heritage Like they did in Louisiana.


True for the most part. It's interesting that the French Reformed Church no longer survives as a denomination in the US, whereas all of the other ethnic Reformed denominations seem to be doing fine. The German Reformed Church, although it merged mostly into the UCC, still exists in its old ethnic form as the RCUS. The Dutch Reformed Church has two large remnants in the RCA and the CRCNA. Congregationalist and Presbyterian churches are common, representing mainly the English and Scottish Calvinists, respectively. But nothing exists anymore in the US in direct continuity with the Huguenots, save some independent churches, like the Huguenot Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Of course, there are still Huguenot heritage organizations in the US, like the Huguenot Society of America, the National Huguenot Society, and the Huguenot Society of the Founders of Manakin in the Colony of Virginia. And I'd add that cultural preservation wasn't really the goal of the Huguenot refugees. I don't know if you are, but if you're Protestant, or especially Calvinist, then you've succeeded in preserving what they would have actually felt to be important to preserve.

----------


## L.D.Brousse

I'm Southern Baptist My 5Th Great Grandfathers brother Philip Bruce was a famous Methodist preacher he rode with the Bishop Asbury and was a chaplain at the battle of Kings mountain my 5th Great Grandfather Arnold Bruce fought in the war as well with Col. Ambros Ramsey orange county NC militia but he was not well know like his brother.In the Bishop Asbury's papers on line it has many stories about run ins Philip had with the local Torries and some of _Tarleton's_ troop

----------


## Pi gman

> Same here, for my (tiny as a part of my ancestry... about 1/250 parts) French side. Do you know that your family is ancient in Saintonge? It was very much a gathering place for Huguenots from all over Western France; many came from areas that were not particularly close to settle near the secure walls of La Rochelle. I descend from a family that certainly was in Saintonge at the time that they emigrated, but their surname indicates that they may have more anciently lived in Haute Bretagne.


Sparky you seem to know about Huguenot history so I will present this question to you:

My ancestors Pigmon/Pimond were always said to be French and I am finding out that after around 1620 they left France to go to Hunstanton, Norfolk, England where the name is spelled Pigman. In France Pigmon is (even today) being indexed as Pimond. I find most of the family in the area of Pimond, Chanac-Les-Mines, Correze, Limousin but some are in Rhone-Alpes. I have also found in the 1600's some Pimond in the La Rochelle area. I have searched to no avail for many years on ship passenger lists. Is there any way of finding (Huguenot?) records on my family who may have come from LaRochelle to Hunstanton and Norwich, Norfolk and then in the late 1600's to the U.S. colonies?

----------


## sparkey

> Sparky you seem to know about Huguenot history so I will present this question to you:
> 
> My ancestors Pigmon/Pimond were always said to be French and I am finding out that after around 1620 they left France to go to Hunstanton, Norfolk, England where the name is spelled Pigman. In France Pigmon is (even today) being indexed as Pimond. I find most of the family in the area of Pimond, Chanac-Les-Mines, Correze, Limousin but some are in Rhone-Alpes. I have also found in the 1600's some Pimond in the La Rochelle area. I have searched to no avail for many years on ship passenger lists. Is there any way of finding (Huguenot?) records on my family who may have come from LaRochelle to Hunstanton and Norwich, Norfolk and then in the late 1600's to the U.S. colonies?


In general, you have to hope for a stroke of luck that there is a surviving passenger list with your ancestor on it. Here are some examples: Mary & Ann, Peter & Anthony, and Nassau. I didn't see any Pimond/Pigmon passengers on those, though. Many Huguenots can't be traced all the way back to France. A useful tool for figuring out where they may have originally come from is Geopatonyme, although it seems you have already done your homework with respect to where the Pimond family is based out of (clearly Corrèze).

----------


## Pi gman

Thank you Sparkey for your reply, I didn't find it until today. Maybe I can set this forum to e-mail me when someone answers my post.

Actually I do not think they will be on a list because of the circumstances of the Huguenots. Many of them walked to the English channel and crossed secretly at night. When in the Hunstanton, Norfolk area they were listed at first as non-conformists and later on in the 1600's as members of the Church of England. (probably because they were again forced to convert). 

Some Pigmon/Pimond/Pigmans stayed, some went to Tilburg, Nord-Brabant, Netherlands (Pigmans with an s spelling in Holland) and I think one came over to Maryland in the late 1600's or there could have been 2 migrations - one to North Carolina just before the War for Independence. The frustrating thing is there are no records of my family on the ship passenger lists that early. The genetic distance is 5 for one comparison between myself and a Maryland Pigman where it should have been a 3 if we are all descended from the same ancestor.

So I will keep looking.

----------


## Vinnie

> France is an ethnically complex country. It is the largest country in Europe. It has been settled or invaded by all the great cultures of Europe : Celts, Basques, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Norses, etc. Furthermore, it is usually accepted that northern France is closer both culturally and ethnically to northern Europe, while the southern part of the country is definitely more southern European in every respect. 
> 
> But things get even more complicated once we try to divide France by region according to how people look, or what DNA tests tell us. There is no clear divide between all the peoples that have settled in France in history.
> 
> The easiest group to spot are the Basques, around the western Pyrenees, who have managed to keep a strong cultural identity of their own. 
> 
> The Bretons are often considered to be the last "Celts" in France. Although they may be the last to speak a Celtic language, genetically they are far from being outsiders like the Basques. In fact, most of France used to be Celtic 2000 years ago, and Celtic genes can still be found in most of the country. 
> 
> The most "Celtic" parts of France are the remotest ones, deep into the mountains of the Massif Central, especially in Auvergne and the Cevennes. Brittany is in fact less genuinely Celtic due to the influx of Germanic people from Normandy or Britain.
> ...




Roman population didn't leave genetic legacy, according genetics, and like most of the invaders made up only a tiny part of society.
Mediterannoids have always lived in France.

----------


## Vinnie

Romans also hadn't rilevant genetic impact in Iberia, like in all counties they conquered. The impact was political and cultural.
Besides most Roman generals in Iberia, France, etc. were Latinized locals.


Roman legions were not only composed of Italo-Romans ----> *Cohors I Celtiberorum Equitata civium romanorum*---->http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohors_...vium_romanorum


2º ----> *Cohors I Celtiberorum* ---->http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohors_I_Celtiberorum



many Celtiberians were assigned to Hadrian's Wall in England, many of the Roman legions who invaded Iberia were composed of Gauls, Germans and people from the Balkans.

* Balkans = J2 influence*

----------


## Theodorik

> Roman population didn't leave genetic legacy, according genetics, and like most of the invaders made up only a tiny part of society.
> Mediterannoids have always lived in France.


The Germanic conquerors who ruled France for over 1,000 years as the nobility only made up about 5% of the population. France was named after the Franks, a Germanic tribe from Franken (northern Bavaria) who crossed the Rhine at Franfort ("Ford of the Rhine"). The Burgundians came from the Danish island of Bornholm (Borgonderholm). The Visigoths, from southern Sweden, also made up part of the French nobility. The Normans came from Norway. Even today, in Norwegian, the word for a Norwegian is "Normand." The Normans conquered Normandy in 911, led by Rollo the Viking. In 1066 they conquered England and became the English nobility.

----------


## Vinnie

> The Germanic conquerors who ruled France for over 1,000 years as the nobility only made up about 5% of the population. France was named after the Franks, a Germanic tribe from Franken (northern Bavaria) who crossed the Rhine at Franfort ("Ford of the Rhine"). The Burgundians came from the Danish island of Bornholm (Borgonderholm). The Visigoths, from southern Sweden, also made up part of the French nobility. The Normans came from Norway. Even today, in Norwegian, the word for a Norwegian is "Normand." The Normans conquered Normandy in 911, led by Rollo the Viking. In 1066 they conquered England and became the English nobility.


Yes, like I said really a tiny part became Germanic of the existing population. The rest you may assume are descendants of the Gauls.

----------


## Diviacus

> Yes, like I said really a tiny part became Germanic of the existing population. The rest you may assume are descendants of the Gauls.


 Don't forget at least the 20% immigrants of the 20th century!

----------


## Angela

> Roman population didn't leave genetic legacy, according genetics, and like most of the invaders made up only a tiny part of society.
> Mediterannoids have always lived in France.


I would agree that the "Mediterranean component" has been in France since at least the Neolithic. The "red-Littoral" component and J2 could just as well be Metal Ages maritime in nature as well, but I 'm not so sure that there isn't a "Roman" component as well. 

I don't know of any genetic research that would negate that, especially because I'm not aware of the existence of any reference sample for the native people of Province, the Luberon etc. for comparison purposes. Indeed, that is the problem with trying to figure out French genetics, i.e. the paucity of samples that have been analyzed autosomally in a very diverse country. 

"Provence" or "Our Province" had a special value in the Roman world, and was intensively settled through Roman colonies of veterans. Likewise, there was extensive flow from Provence into Italy itself.

SeeWikipedia: ProvanzaIl controllo romano non fu totalmente accettato durante la prima metà del primo secolo a.C. Veniva esercitato attraverso quadri politici preesistenti. Le comunità della Gallia del Sud avevano uno status differente secondo le loro particolarità e attitudini verso Roma. Marsiglia aveva pure uno status privilegiato; le tribù indigene controllavano le loro istituzioni e magistrature. Roma favoriva l'accesso al potere ai capi indigeni.
Il controllo romano in Gallia meridionale si esercitava a favore di Roma, che esigeva le imposte, reclutava gli ausiliari per le proprie legioni e imponeva le corvées. Favoriva anche il profitto di "negoziatori" romani e dell'aristocrazia locale alleata.
Al principio degli anni 40 a.C. la sola comunità romana era la colonia di Narbona. Fino all'inizio del regno di Augusto le province vivevano al ritmo delle lotte intestine di Roma. Le guerre tra Giulio Cesare e Pompeo ebbero come conseguenze la perdita di importanza di Marsiglia e la fondazione di nuove colonie militari. Marsiglia si era in effetti pronunciata a favore di Pompeo. Cesare la assediò nel 49 a.C. e la città dovette capitolare. Conservò il suo governo e la sua situazione di città federata, ma perse i suoi vascelli, i suoi bastioni e i suoi territori, ad eccezione di Nizza e delle isole d'Hyères.
Per ricompensa ai propri soldati Cesare fondò delle colonie. Le colonie di Narbona e d'Arles furono così create con dei soldati della 10ª e 6ª legione. Nel 31 a.C. all'indomani della battaglia di Azio, Augusto installò a Frejus una parte della propria flotta. Ivi vi stabilì poco dopo i veterani della 8ª legione.
Durante il primo secolo a.C. i capi politici delle città ricevettero il diritto di cittadinanza romana e furono così integrati nel sistema romano delle clientele. Alla fine del secolo i loro discendenti facevano carriera a Roma. Molti furono iscritti tra i cavalieri, e anche senatori. Nel primo secolo d.C. questa romanizzazione riguardava le élite politiche e culturali, con anche l'adozione del modo di vita urbano.
I magistrati municipali ricevettero, per sé e per i propri parenti, il diritto di cittadinanza romana. Trentasette colonie latine furono fondate sotto Augusto e i primi imperatori. Tre ricevettero successivamente il diritto di cittadinanza (Valence, Vienne e Aix-en-Provence).
Gli agglomerati si dotarono di monumenti romani: cinte fortificate, archi di trionfo, fori, templi, teatri, anfiteatri e circhi (Arles, Cimiez, Orange, Vaison-la-Romaine) e acquedotti.

These colonies are also discussed at this French site:
http://www.provence7.com/a-a-z-des-a...vence-romaine/
Go to La Provence est Romaine


Disentangling all the gene flows would be well nigh impossible, I would think.

----------


## The_Lyonnist

> Roman population didn't leave genetic legacy, according genetics, and like most of the invaders made up only a tiny part of society.
> Mediterannoids have always lived in France.


Not exactly. At the foundation of Lyon (Lugdunum) at -43, a large part of the inhabitants are Roman soldiers. It must necessarily remain something.

----------


## MOESAN

_
1- the map your seems referring to is very very unreliable and it mixes metrics and ethnic affiliations - 
2- different sorts of so called 'mediterraneans' live in France at least since Neolithic but others came during proto-History and History; I suspect a Late Mesolithic first introduction, evolved somewhere in East Mediterranea and mixing with different kinds of Mesoloithic people in West, whatever the phylum.
3- auDNA is not precise
4- Romans, even of Italic origin, were not only 'mediterranean', even in a large meaning
5- Yes, I think Romans left an imput in France, differing according to regions, even if not too heavy - a personal observation push me to think the towns as a whole show since long ago an heavier Roman or more precisely heavier vaguely 'southern' imput than rural population; but recent History can explain that too so? Since a long time emigrants settle more easily in towns than in the country, except some peculiar cases - 
6- some regions of France show male ligneages present at higher levels in Italy, but can we link their whole percentages to only Romans - and more the Empire grew up and perdured, more the "Romans" were Celts or Germans or everykind of ethny by origin. By the way, true ethnic Italics of first times had also male ligneages shared with Celts!
I resume myself: ROmans "ligneages" in France: yes! Sure! What weight? more in South and in big towns areas! precise %s? I don't know for sure._

----------


## daniel1983bcn

It is 100% correct this map?

----------


## Sile

> Not exactly. At the foundation of Lyon (Lugdunum) at -43, a large part of the inhabitants are Roman soldiers. It must necessarily remain something.


Italian legacy/genetics of South-eastern France remained Italian until 1860. it has nothing to do with Roman soldiers, it has to do with medieval, Renaissance and Baroque times

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Turin

I would really like to see who are the ancient Ligures ....are they proto-Italic or proto-Gallic

----------


## Sigfrido

Ligures were an isolated IE group, who got Celtized already by the time of Canegrate culture. Proper Italics are only Osco-Umbrias. Latins are already a borderline group.

----------


## MOESAN

> Ligures were an isolated IE group, who got Celtized already by the time of Canegrate culture. Proper Italics are only Osco-Umbrias. Latins are already a borderline group.


_
What kind of "borderline group"? Where do you see them in the global italci history?
Ligures had maybe not been so isolated at first; perhaps they are from a common root shared with old western I-Eans? (more precisely a mix of pre-IEans and first wave of West IEans) - I think by example to the Ancient statements and the Lusitanian speakers.

to SILE: yes, southeastern France is a perpetual land of Italian immigration: Niçois, Provence and the Rhône corridor - We have only to look at surnames! (the ancient Italian surnames had been partly "naturalized" into French names, not the recent ones, added to Corsican names).
_

----------


## Sigfrido

Original Latins and Osco-Umbrians were two separated groups. Of course Romans and Latins became "Italianized" through mixing with Sabines, but originally they belonged to a separated, although related, IE group from Italics.

----------


## DuPidh

> France is an ethnically complex country. It is the largest country in Europe. It has been settled or invaded by all the great cultures of Europe : Celts, Basques, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Norses, etc. Furthermore, it is usually accepted that northern France is closer both culturally and ethnically to northern Europe, while the southern part of the country is definitely more southern European in every respect. 
> 
> But things get even more complicated once we try to divide France by region according to how people look, or what DNA tests tell us. There is no clear divide between all the peoples that have settled in France in history.
> 
> The easiest group to spot are the Basques, around the western Pyrenees, who have managed to keep a strong cultural identity of their own. 
> 
> The Bretons are often considered to be the last "Celts" in France. Although they may be the last to speak a Celtic language, genetically they are far from being outsiders like the Basques. In fact, most of France used to be Celtic 2000 years ago, and Celtic genes can still be found in most of the country. 
> 
> The most "Celtic" parts of France are the remotest ones, deep into the mountains of the Massif Central, especially in Auvergne and the Cevennes. Brittany is in fact less genuinely Celtic due to the influx of Germanic people from Normandy or Britain.
> ...




France also has been for the last century and a half a hot spot of European emigration and non European immigration. France was among the first countries in the world who pioneered industrialization (Eiffel Tower is the symbol of that time) and drew huge number of emigrants to work in their mines and factories. Italians, Russians maybe Spaniards were drawn in huge numbers. Colonialist times have left their genetic imprint as well. So indeed France is a genetically complex country and I will not be surprised that 40% of French genes are of immigrant settlers or colonial countries. They have had in very short Time more than two non French presidents (Holland, Sarkozy ).
If we want to look at genetic history of large countries like France, Italy, Germany I think a better way is tow follow spoken dialects boundaries. Dialects are evidence of ancient ethnicitys being absorbed by a larger ethnic group. Let say Italy I know has the Sicilian dialect. Before they were absorbed by the Latins the spoke their own language. The differences in spoken language were quite large that's why the countries opted for the standardized national languages.
So my point is if the genetic studies are conducted according to dialect areas will have a better picture of genetic history of France. There should have been more ethnicities absorbed by latinised Franks. Emigration is a huge factor. Who will be alive after 100 years from now let say in Germany, will find that 50% of its genetic composition will be from the Middle East because of Emigration.

----------


## gandalf

> _
> 1- the map your seems referring to is very very unreliable and it mixes metrics and ethnic affiliations - 
> 2- different sorts of so called 'mediterraneans' live in France at least since Neolithic but others came during proto-History and History; I suspect a Late Mesolithic first introduction, evolved somewhere in East Mediterranea and mixing with different kinds of Mesoloithic people in West, whatever the phylum.
> 3- auDNA is not precise
> 4- Romans, even of Italic origin, were not only 'mediterranean', even in a large meaning
> 5- Yes, I think Romans left an imput in France, differing according to regions, even if not too heavy - a personal observation push me to think the towns as a whole show since long ago an heavier Roman or more precisely heavier vaguely 'southern' imput than rural population; but recent History can explain that too so? Since a long time emigrants settle more easily in towns than in the country, except some peculiar cases - 
> 6- some regions of France show male ligneages present at higher levels in Italy, but can we link their whole percentages to only Romans - and more the Empire grew up and perdured, more the "Romans" were Celts or Germans or everykind of ethny by origin. By the way, true ethnic Italics of first times had also male ligneages shared with Celts!
> I resume myself: ROmans "ligneages" in France: yes! Sure! What weight? more in South and in big towns areas! precise %s? I don't know for sure._


Your points are very spot on especially about the roman input .
The Italic people were originally into the same italo-celtic-proto germanic group before the separation .
At the time of the Gaulish war Cesar had no problem to understand the Gauls because the languages were close , and the genes too , as the map of R1-S28 show it .
By the way I am an adept of the language continuity theory ; Gaul didn't change their language for latin because both were very close ,
and latin was a pure writen language for administration etc , spoke nowhere , even in Italy .

----------


## Sile

> Your points are very spot on especially about the roman input .
> The Italic people were originally into the same italo-celtic-proto germanic group before the separation .
> At the time of the Gaulish war Cesar had no problem to understand the Gauls because the languages were close , and the genes too , as the map of R1-S28 show it .
> By the way I am an adept of the language continuity theory ; Gaul didn't change their language for latin because both were very close ,
> and latin was a pure writen language for administration etc , spoke nowhere , even in Italy .


depends how far back you want to check on

lets look at Ligures
The greek historian Thucydides states the ligures originated in southern Spain ( Tartessus) and they where driven north by the Iberi people to segre, these ligures in eastern Spain drove the people of segre , the Sicani into langedoc. The iberi followed the ligures and drove them from Spain into southern France up to the Rhone river.
Around 1000BC the Volcae came from central modern france into Langedoc and drove the Iberi south and the Sicani west.

did the Volcae bring the gallic language into southern france and teach the ligures this language due to living next to them.?

Thucydides states the ligures reached the arno river and so their final resting place was between the arno and rhone rivers

----------


## Sigfrido

Unlikely. Seneca claimed that Iberians and Ligures spoke two different languages, so Ligures can't be from Spain.

----------


## LeBrok

> Unlikely. Seneca claimed that Iberians and Ligures* spoke two different languages,* so Ligures can't be from Spain.


On this ground we could assume that Basques are not from Spain either.

----------


## Sigfrido

Ther are no Ligurian place names (with endings in -asco or -asca) in Spain, while Basque place names are common. So what are we talking about?

----------


## LeBrok

> Ther are no Ligurian place names (with endings in -asco or -asca) in Spain, while Basque place names are common. So what are we talking about?


Then you didn't explain yourself well the first time.



> Iberians and Ligures spoke two different languages, so Ligures can't be from Spain

----------


## gandalf

By the way Maciamo , I just had my results from 23andme , so this is a contribution to the genetic knowlegde of France :
my location and paternal ancestry is from Champagne ( 52 ) , and I have :
2,9% neanderthal genes
Y-dna R1b1b2a1a ( common around the north see coasts they say ... Doggerland )
K1 maternal

----------


## MOESAN

> Your points are very spot on especially about the roman input .
> The Italic people were originally into the same italo-celtic-proto germanic group before the separation .
> At the time of the Gaulish war Cesar had no problem to understand the Gauls because the languages were close , and the genes too , as the map of R1-S28 show it .
> By the way I am an adept of the language continuity theory ; Gaul didn't change their language for latin because both were very close ,
> and latin was a pure writen language for administration etc , spoke nowhere , even in Italy .


_
No, Caesar could not understand a bit of word in the gaulish language, where the hell did you pick this weird idea? - I put some vocabulary in another thread about that - the common origin or rather the common place of tight contact between Italics and Celts was before that, and not in the Western Alps, surely as old as 1500 BC or before (I'm not sure here, but some centuries of separation can already create some big breaks between not written languages; and the Y-R1b-U152 birthdate is old enough to have preceded this separation. By the way, I think that the most of Y-R1b-U152 bearers in Italy are more of Ligurian descent than of pure Italic descent, even if apparently Osco-Umbrians had R-U152 too.
I agree the partly common origin of Italics, Ligurians and Celts can make harder the jauging of Romans imput in Gaul (complicated by more recent immigrationS into France from modern Italy)
_&: a lot of typical celtic-italic cognates are easy to devine by linguists, less by amateurs because of the phonetic evolution, BUT THE MEANING of these "twin" words at Roman Empire time was already drift very far from another (house/tile+ - wheat:corn/food - center:middle/hart - hedge/garden - and so on... ask Taranis for the dates
&&: the written latin was surely conservative - but we can see its evolution, nevertheless - ti doesn't mean the spoken language was so far from it, and spite the celtic loanwords, it was not interintelligibel with celtic. I know all these theories about the today romane languages NOT descending from latin: rubbish!

----------


## Ailchu

"the romans describe teaching the women in gaul after conquest, to 'lie down along the road' as their legions passed through.."
whats the historical source for this? never heard of something like this.

there definitly was a genetic impact on the gauls during and after the gallic war. but i guess unless there is no study that compares the genome of pre roman gauls to modern day french we will never know how big it is.

----------


## Angela

Significant change to the genomes of a particular era require large scale migrations. Romans did not move en masse to Gaul.

As to the Germanic invasions:

See:
Ralph and Coop
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology...l.pbio.1001555

Discussed here:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05...t-genetic.html

It's also been discussed on our site. Put Ralph and Coop in the search engine and threads will pop up where the paper is discussed.

Of course, ancient dna from different periods will be the best proof. That's why a lot of geneticists are now leaving these kinds of questions up to the scientists testing ancient dna, unlike amateurs, who continue to love to write reams of material just off the tops of their heads.

----------


## Tomenable

> Romans did not move en masse to Gaul.


They established many cities and colonies where retired veterans with families settled.

----------


## Angela

> They established many cities and colonies where retired veterans with families settled.


I have news for you: that's not the definition of a folk migration, not in Gaul at least. I'm not saying there'd be necessarily no trace, but for "significant" change to the genome you need more. There weren't all that many families in each colony, and they were surrounded by "locals". 

Parts of Italy are a different story.



They're missing Luni, which isn't very far from me.

Despite that cluster in Spain, for example, Ralph and Coop could find no IBD between Italy and Spain since the Bronze Age, and they were looking at very tiny segments.

----------


## Ed the Red

Why does a mention of skintone scare you people so much? It is a great indication of your ancestry! I'm not saying it is the only one by any means but when used together with different traits you get a much better glimpse into where that individual is descended from......
..........................isn't it.

----------


## yvesson

> France also has been for the last century and a half a hot spot of European emigration and non European immigration. France was among the first countries in the world who pioneered industrialization (Eiffel Tower is the symbol of that time) and drew huge number of emigrants to work in their mines and factories. Italians, Russians maybe Spaniards were drawn in huge numbers. Colonialist times have left their genetic imprint as well. So indeed France is a genetically complex country and I will not be surprised that 40% of French genes are of immigrant settlers or colonial countries. They have had in very short Time more than two non French presidents (Holland, Sarkozy ).
> If we want to look at genetic history of large countries like France, Italy, Germany I think a better way is tow follow spoken dialects boundaries. Dialects are evidence of ancient ethnicitys being absorbed by a larger ethnic group. Let say Italy I know has the Sicilian dialect. Before they were absorbed by the Latins the spoke their own language. The differences in spoken language were quite large that's why the countries opted for the standardized national languages.
> So my point is if the genetic studies are conducted according to dialect areas will have a better picture of genetic history of France. There should have been more ethnicities absorbed by latinised Franks. Emigration is a huge factor. Who will be alive after 100 years from now let say in Germany, will find that 50% of its genetic composition will be from the Middle East because of Emigration.


Hej,
I think 40% is close to the reality, if you include all recent immigrants, including belgians, poles, portuguese, spaniards and italians, and all the newest african immigrants (from the colonies).

That leads me to wonder where are the merovingians and carolingians in those french genetic maps. Either I'm reading them wrong or there are no descendency from those groups having ruled france (or more or less the territory which is now france) for 500 years, please enlighten me.

If you compare the Netherlands and the areas around (from where the merovingians and carolingians must have come from) and france Y DNA haplogroups today, they have very few in common. 
If one assumes Merovingians and Carolingians would have been I1, R1A and R1B S21, and you remove the belgians from the north and north east of France, and the poles (and the normal population near the borders, because the borders don't mean anything there), that means there is barely no R1A, I1 and R1B S21 before the few hundred last years immigration and beside the areas close to belgium and germany ?

----------


## mihaitzateo

A short notice about Maciamo map:
In Britanny should be a strong Breton influence. This is what the common sense is saying, because the Bretons are same people with Celtic Ancestors of English people and related to Welsh people.Some Bretons from England even migrated to Britanny. Because is not plausible to tell that all Bretons from England migrated to Britanny. So Bretons that remained in England mixed to AngloSaxons.
Here, some interesting research could be done, to see the resemblances between Bretons from France and English people.
There is also a Breton language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breton_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretons
Also, it seems Britanny was under Viking rule.
French people are most diverse from Europe (I am referring to Europe French ancestry people).
From more darker skinned Med people till Nordic people.
Regarding the physical look of old Celtic languages speakers, please remember that Celts/Gauls were a group of ethnicities, with different languages and very likely with quite different physical look.
A large group of people as Slavs are.
About what Roman historians are telling, those are generalizations.

----------

