Genetic make-up of France

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..
 
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.
 
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.

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).



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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
I once heard that people living under the River Loire wre not consider "French" by Northern French people
 
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.
 
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".
 
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
 
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. (y) 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:

francemap.gif


In my opinion to be pretty Italian are Languedoc, Provence, Lyon and Corse.
 
And how's South-West France? In Italy South East France is as famous and prestigious as South West is ignote. :disappointed:

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.
 
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/transcripts/3116_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.
 
And how's South-West France? In Italy South East France is as famous and prestigious as South West is ignote. :disappointed:


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
 
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)
 
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...
 

This thread has been viewed 332367 times.

Back
Top