Genetic make-up of France

[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-articles/histoire-de-la-provence-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.

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.

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/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

Discussed here:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-geography-of-recent-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.