Don't forget at least the 20% immigrants of the 20th century!Yes, like I said really a tiny part became Germanic of the existing population. The rest you may assume are descendants of the Gauls.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Don't forget at least the 20% immigrants of the 20th century!Yes, like I said really a tiny part became Germanic of the existing population. The rest you may assume are descendants of the Gauls.
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.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.
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.
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.
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 .
On this ground we could assume that Basques are not from Spain either.Unlikely. Seneca claimed that Iberians and Ligures spoke two different languages, so Ligures can't be from Spain.
Then you didn't explain yourself well the first time.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?
Iberians and Ligures spoke two different languages, so Ligures can't be from Spain
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 .
This thread has been viewed 335393 times.