-
Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.
Genetic make-up of France
- Thread starter Maciamo
- Start date
Cambrius (The Red)
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Gallaecian Celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b (RL-21*)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3
What happened to Smertrius' last two posts?
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.
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.
Last edited:
Cambrius (The Red)
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Gallaecian Celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b (RL-21*)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3
Ok, I hear you. It is rather ridiculous - this nonsense about who is lighter or darker.
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.
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 [SIZE=-1](330-400 AD) writes : "The Gauls are generally tall, with white skin, **blond hair** and frightful and ferocious eyes. [/SIZE]Their mood is quarrelsome and extremely arrogant.[SIZE=-1] "[/SIZE]
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..
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.
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.
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)...
Last edited:
Cambrius (The Red)
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Gallaecian Celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b (RL-21*)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3
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.
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.
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)
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Gallaecian Celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b (RL-21*)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3
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.
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 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.
No comment.
Last edited:
Cambrius (The Red)
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Gallaecian Celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b (RL-21*)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3
WOW! Strange goings on...
Cambrius (The Red)
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Gallaecian Celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b (RL-21*)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3
I was referring to the recent exchanges on this thread...
Cambrius (The Red)
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Gallaecian Celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b (RL-21*)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3
No problem with what you wrote at all. I was referring to the tone of the exchange, that's all.
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)
Regular Member
- Messages
- 2,633
- Reaction score
- 21
- Points
- 0
- Ethnic group
- Gallaecian Celtic
- Y-DNA haplogroup
- R1b (RL-21*)
- mtDNA haplogroup
- H3
I agree. His "argument" as regards the Gauls and Germans is disjointed and relies on untenable "evidence".