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.