Europe is an ethnic melting pot. Well, let's not exaggerate. Europeans are genetically among the most homogeneous racial group. Indians, South-East Asians, Middle-Easterners, Central Asians and Africans all have greater genetic diversity than Europeans. But we were taught at school that Europe had a long history of invasions, wars, conquests and migrations. And it is true. What I am interested in here is how do Europeans see themselves. To put it differently, when you read a history book, who do you identify as your ancestors ?
The answer is pretty straightforward for Scandinavians and north Germans, who will have close to 100% of Germanic ancestry, if 'Germanic' means the tribes that lived between the lower Rhine and Scandinavia during Imperial Roman times.
For pretty much everyone else one's ancestry isn't as clear. The Finns, the Balts and northern Russians have mixed Siberian and Slavic ancestry, with a pinch of Germanic.
The Irish and the Scots are of overwhelmingly Celtic descent (whatever that means) but cannot deny a substantial Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Norman admixture (and with the Norman also Gallic and Roman blood).
Central Europeans have the most complex ethnic blend, with pre-Celtic (Balkano-Greek), Celtic, Roman, Slavic and Germanic claims of ancestry.
The Italians may think of themselves as the most representative descendants of the Romans, but the truth is that Rome attracted people from all over the empire, and later Germanic and Hunnic invaders also left their genetic print on the peninsula. Add to this that northern Italy was always more Celtic and southern Italy more Greek. So who should one identify with ? Is it strange for a Milanese to say "our ancestors the Celts and the Germans" ? Probably not. Probably less than "our ancestors the Athenians and the Spartans". In the south, things are reversed.
As a Belgian I wondered when growing up if my ancestors were more Gauls, Romans, Franks or Vikings. I have chosen to identify more with Germanic people based on my looks and character (even though I am from the French-speaking part). But the Belgian DNA project has now made it clear that only half of the male lineages are of Germanic origins, and surely less than that on the maternal side. As the Belgic tribes lost against the Romans it has not been very popular to claim Gaulish or Celtic ancestry in Belgium (unlike in the British Isles, France or Iberia). Belgian French speakers like to identify themselves with the Romans, or to say that they are first and foremost of Gallo-Roman descent (as a fair compromise). And it is true that once the Germanic haplogroups are cut out from the total, what is left looks very much like a northern or central Italian admixture. I suppose I shouldn't discard my Gallo-Roman ancestry too quickly, as it may prove dominant over the Germanic appearance.
The answer is pretty straightforward for Scandinavians and north Germans, who will have close to 100% of Germanic ancestry, if 'Germanic' means the tribes that lived between the lower Rhine and Scandinavia during Imperial Roman times.
For pretty much everyone else one's ancestry isn't as clear. The Finns, the Balts and northern Russians have mixed Siberian and Slavic ancestry, with a pinch of Germanic.
The Irish and the Scots are of overwhelmingly Celtic descent (whatever that means) but cannot deny a substantial Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Norman admixture (and with the Norman also Gallic and Roman blood).
Central Europeans have the most complex ethnic blend, with pre-Celtic (Balkano-Greek), Celtic, Roman, Slavic and Germanic claims of ancestry.
The Italians may think of themselves as the most representative descendants of the Romans, but the truth is that Rome attracted people from all over the empire, and later Germanic and Hunnic invaders also left their genetic print on the peninsula. Add to this that northern Italy was always more Celtic and southern Italy more Greek. So who should one identify with ? Is it strange for a Milanese to say "our ancestors the Celts and the Germans" ? Probably not. Probably less than "our ancestors the Athenians and the Spartans". In the south, things are reversed.
As a Belgian I wondered when growing up if my ancestors were more Gauls, Romans, Franks or Vikings. I have chosen to identify more with Germanic people based on my looks and character (even though I am from the French-speaking part). But the Belgian DNA project has now made it clear that only half of the male lineages are of Germanic origins, and surely less than that on the maternal side. As the Belgic tribes lost against the Romans it has not been very popular to claim Gaulish or Celtic ancestry in Belgium (unlike in the British Isles, France or Iberia). Belgian French speakers like to identify themselves with the Romans, or to say that they are first and foremost of Gallo-Roman descent (as a fair compromise). And it is true that once the Germanic haplogroups are cut out from the total, what is left looks very much like a northern or central Italian admixture. I suppose I shouldn't discard my Gallo-Roman ancestry too quickly, as it may prove dominant over the Germanic appearance.
