Genetics of the Western French coast

[Peterski]

Along the coastline strip of land shorter than e.g. distance from Cracow to Lublin in Poland (less than 200 km), there is a big difference in genetics:

1. French person from Charente-Maritime (although more distant ancestors could be from Aquitaine), most similar to Basques and South Europe:

https://i.imgur.com/Dia9YJN.png

2. French person from Pays Nantais (Loire-Atlantique) - Armorican lands before Roman conquest - most similar to Bretons, Armoricans and Brits:

https://i.imgur.com/onhvQMo.png

^^^ You can compare to the distribution of tribes in Pre-Roman Western Europe:

https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/7y2is8/i_drew_a_map_of_the_preroman_peoples_of_western/

https://i.imgur.com/wx3QCnO.png

[Bellbeaking]

cool, posted same one twice i am sure you are amending this as i type but just in case you missed this error

[Peterski]

Eurogenes K15 mapping: https://gen3553.pagesperso-orange.fr/ADN/K15.htm

Pays Nantais sample:

Abscisse (x-axis): 274 pixel, Ordonnée (y-axis): 172 pixel

Charentes-Maritime:

Abscisse (x-axis): 144 pixel, Ordonnée (y-axis): 201 pixel

https://i.imgur.com/imFhSyt.png


cool, posted same one twice i am sure you are amending this as i type but just in case you missed this error

Yes, fixed it. :thumb001:

[Western_French]

And if you compare let's say a native Lorrain and a native Provençal, you will notice the same scenario but towards Germany/Belgium and Italy instead.

[dududud]

and you have my father
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/921x807q90/r/922/03Ids6.png
https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/631x460q90/r/922/iRFsNr.png

[Western_French]

I am still surprised that the sample from Charente is so remote from the Loire-Atlantic one, they are quite similar people in these 2 regions, he must have some Basque origin I think.

[Western_French]

Which part of France is your father from ?

[dududud]

Which part of France is your father from ?

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?291929-Father-23andme-results-gedmatch

[Western_French]

No permission to see your page, I don't know why !

----------------------------------------------------------

you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

[Western_French]

I did that map using my K36 results too and I am from Loire-Atlantic too so makes sense.

[dududud]

No permission to see your page, I don't know why !

----------------------------------------------------------

you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:

Your user account may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.

''My father is mostly from North of France with a distant ancestors of Couhé (Fourchette, last name of this ancestors), Central France (i know very well his genealogy).''

[Peterski]

I am still surprised that the sample from Charente is so remote from the Loire-Atlantic one, they are quite similar people in these 2 regions, he must have some Basque origin I think.

Basque origin? Or do you rather mean Aquitanian / Gascon (Romance-speakers) orogin?

Entire Aquitania is genetically very similar to the Basques, despite speaking Romance.

Here is the explanation one user suggested in my thread about this on Anthrogenica:

Quote:

"Charentes-Maritimes were speaking a Poitevin dialect of West-France, with specificities - but it is believed they spoke before dialects closer to Occitanie ones - that said:

1- Poitou has been part of Great Aquitaine in Middle-Ages times.

2- Southern and Eastern Poitou phenotipically presented more mesocephalic less brachycephalic people than even North Gascon people, and in their mix showed a stronger 'mediter' (roughly said) input.

3- Brachycephally augmented quickly during IA in Western France, surely based on Jura or Alps pops moves of Celticized pops under some Celts tribes pression; here the concerned Poitevins seem having resisted to this push more than neighbouring regions.

4- Spite lacking some dialectal innovations common to peri-Basque regions and Gascogne, the southern Poitevin dialect show a trend towards spiration of French /sh/ -> a sound between /sh/ and /kh/ + of /zh/ -> /h/, shortly said a trend close to the evolution occurred in North-Castile/Basque country - without contacts! But I think some articulatory habits can survive a long time among populations.

Have we here a long term survivance of common genetic heritage (even if not 100%?)"

[Token]

Well, Bretons are kind of outliers in France.

[Peterski]

Well, Bretons are kind of outliers in France.

So are Gascons / Aquitanians. At least in calculators with Basque component. They are very closely related to the Basques.

We have here a case where two extreme outliers meet each other somewhere in the middle of the western French coast.

[Token]

So are Gascons / Aquitanians. At least in calculators with Basque component. They are very closely related to the Basques.

Yes, French proper admixture there looks minimal.

[Peterski]

Well, Bretons are kind of outliers in France.

But we don't know if they were always outliers, until we get ancient Gaulish samples.

We don't know how much they are descended from recent immigration of Insular Celts.

Have you seen my thread about the R1b-U152 sample from Empuries in Catalonia? This guy is genetically like modern Bretons:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?293767-I8215-and-I8206-ancient-Greek-and-ancient-Gaul-from-Empuries-colony

But he was buried in Greek colony Empuries, on the southern fringes of the Gaulish world - not in Armorica (modern Brittany).

[Token]

But we don't know if they were always outliers, until we get ancient Gaulish samples.

We don't know how much they are descended from recent immigration of Insular Celts.

Have you seen my thread about the R1b-U152 sample from Empuries in Catalonia? This guy is genetically like modern Bretons:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?293767-I8215-and-I8206-ancient-Greek-and-ancient-Gaul-from-Empuries-colony

But he was buried in Greek colony Empuries, on the southern fringes of the Gaulish world - not in Armorica (modern Brittany).

Yep, this sample pluzzes me, but labeling it 'Gaulish' is purely arbitrary as there is no evidence that the guy came from Gallia. On the other hand we have one Hallstatt sample, a confirmed Celtic people, clustering with modern-day French people, even though it comes from the eastern fringe of the culture. I'd bet Gauls were not much different from modern-day French but lets see.

[Peterski]

but labeling it 'Gaulish' is purely arbitrary as there is no evidence that the guy came from Gallia.

Empuries was pretty much located on the southern border of Gallia. Borderlands between Gallia and Iberia.

[Token]

Empuries was pretty much located on the southern border of Gallia. Borderlands between Gallia and Iberia.

So do you believe Gauls, from Northern Italy to Belgium, were all like Irish?

[Peterski]

On the other hand we have one Hallstatt sample, a confirmed Celtic people, clustering with modern-day French people, even though it comes from the eastern fringe of the culture.

We have two Hallstatt Bylany samples - only one of them clusters with modern French, due to some kind of Mediterranean admixture.

The other sample clusters with modern Austrians and clearly had some kind of Eastern (Slavic or maybe Hungarian Scythian) admxture.

The sample who clusters with modern French, could also have Non-Celtic admixture from people like Hungarian Bronze Age samples.

PS:

Bylany was a fringe sub-group of Hallstatt, we do not have any DNA from Hallstatt core so far.

But we have Unetice samples from Poland clustering with modern Irish (for example RISE150).


I'd bet Gauls were not much different from modern-day French but lets see.

I think modern-day French have significant Italian (Roman) admixture, just like modern-day Iberians (see: Olalde study on Iberians).

They speak Romance languages because they have significant Romance (Latin/Italian) ancestry.

[Token]

We have two Hallstatt Bylany samples - only one of them clusters with modern French, due to some kind of Mediterranean admixture.

The other sample clusters with modern Austrians and clearly had some kind of Eastern (Slavic or maybe Hungarian Scythian) admxture.

The sample who clusters with modern French, could have admixture from people like Hungarian Bronze Age samples.

PS:

Bylany was a fringe sub-group of Hallstatt, we do not have any DNA from Hallstatt core so far.

But we have Unetice samples from Poland clustering with modern Irish (for example RISE150).
Unetice has little do with Celts, and the Hallstatt sample with eastern admixture clearly had actual steppe Scythian admixture. Yeah, i agree that the actual Celts are yet to be sampled, but one thing is for sure, they were at least as northern as modern-day Frenchmen based on the northern pulse of admixture that coincides with the introduction of Celtic speech into Iberia.

[Peterski]

I think the idea that Gauls just magically started speaking Latin, dressing in togas, abiding by Roman law, and building advanced aqueducts and Roman-style cities, is wrong. All Romance-speaking nations (as well as Western/Southern Germans) must have not insignificant amounts of Italian/Roman admixture.

European barbarians were civilized through admixture with civilized people.

[Token]

I think the idea that Gauls just magically started speaking Latin, dressing in togas, abiding by Roman law, and building advanced aquadecuts and Roman-style cities, is wrong. All Romance-speaking nations (as well as Western/Southern Germans) must have significant amounts of Italian/Roman admixture.

All of European barbarians were civilized through admixture with civilized people.
I agree with you in the case of the French. Roman admixture might be minimal in Southern Germany, the southern shift is mostly caused by mixing with native Alpine people. And lets not forget the Germanic admixture that the French certainly got.

[Peterski]

Roman admixture might be minimal in Southern Germany, the southern shift is mostly caused by mixing with native Alpine people.

Who were those native Alpine people? In any case, they were probably genetically similar to modern North Italians or Central Italians.

Bronze Age Dalmatian samples were also similar to modern North Italians.

[Token]

Who were those native Alpine people? In any case, they were probably genetically similar to modern North Italians or Central Italians.

Rhaetians and all kind of Celts.

[Peterski]

And lets not forget the Germanic admixture that the French certainly got.

It is estimated that 200,000 Franks moved into areas with 6,000,000 Gallo-Romans - so 3% Germanic admixture, very small amount.

In places like Cotentin Peninsula and some other areas with more recent (Post-Frankish) Germanic influence, it will be more of course.

=====

Also the French Revolution killed most of the nobility, where you could expect higher-than-average input from the old Frankish families.

[Token]

It is estimated that 200,000 Franks moved into areas with 6,000,000 Gallo-Romans - so 3% Germanic admixture, very small amount.

In places like Cotentin Peninsula and some other areas with more recent (Post-Frankish) Germanic influence, it will be more of course.
I'd not put much value in these estimates, they always have large margins of error. Southern Europe was also densely populated in the Neolithic, and now look at the mess that some migrants from Eastern Europe left there, who were supposed to have been just some tiny bands of warriors. The Germanic influence in French language is quite huge.

[Peterski]

Southern Europe was also densely populated in the Neolithic

Not really. Neolithic farmers did not have the technology to allow for high population density. For example, they did not even have advanced ploughs:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?236838-Proto-Indo-European-technology

"Wheeled wagons became popular in Western Eurasia during the 4th millennium BC, not much later than sledges and coulters or wooden ploughs - Early Neolithic Farmers did not have such technology, they were using mattocks and hoe-forks. Coulters and simple ploughs were invented later, in the 4th millennium BC."

Other things that worked against them:

1) They did not have high genetic diversity ("Sardinians everywhere") which made them less flexible to adapt to all kinds of changes,

2) Apparently they had very low resistance to yersinia pestis (the first pandemia of "black death" was brought to Europe back then),

3) Neolithic populations in Europe collapsed already before the main advance of Steppe people (they moved into depopulated areas):

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3486

=====

PS:

Maybe you are talking about large settlements of the Trypillian culture in Ukraine. Okay. But nothing this large existed in Neolithic Western Europe.

Ukraine has chernozems (black soils), which are the best soils for agriculture. This is why it could support such large settlements in Neolithic times.

Trypillian culture was actually the main obstacle to domination over Europe for Indo-Europeans.

Once they overran the Trypillians (in West Ukraine, east of the Carpathians!), it was later a piece of cake to overun everything up to the Atlantic Coast.

Trypillian culture had such "mega villages" (surrounded by wooden palisades), there was nothing larger anywhere else in Europe at that time, AFAIK:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/field/image/Trypillian-city-Talianki.jpg

^^^ If I was a Steppe warlord, I would just surround this with a unit of horse archers and pepper it with flaming arrows. It wasn't that hard to conquer.

[Token]

Not really. Neolithic farmers did not have the technology to allow for high population density. For example, they did not even have advanced ploughs:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?236838-Proto-Indo-European-technology

"Wheeled wagons became popular in Western Eurasia during the 4th millennium BC, not much later than sledges and coulters or wooden ploughs. Early Neolithic Farmers did not have such technology, they were using mattocks and hoe-forks. Coulters and simple ploughs were invented later, in the 4th millennium BC."

Other things that worked against them:

1) They did not have high genetic diversity ("Sardinians everywhere") which made them less flexible to adapt to all kinds of changes,

2) Apparently they had very low resistance to yersinia pestis (the first pandemia of "black death" was brought to Europe back then),

3) Neolithic populations in Europe collapsed already before the main advance of Steppe people (they moved into depopulated areas):

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3486

=====

PS:

Maybe you are talking about large settlements of the Trypillian culture in Ukraine. Okay. But nothing this large existed in Neolithic Western Europe.

Central Europe was severely affected by the plague, but Southern Europe had Proto-Cities when Northern Beakers started heading south. Immediately before Corded Ware started to move in, Neolithic Central Europe was actually experiencing a rise in its population.

Lack of ancestry diversity isn't a sign of low genetic diversity.

[Peterski]

Lack of ancestry diversity isn't a sign of low genetic diversity.

Not always, but it might be. In this case, apparently they were all vulnerable to yersinia pestis (just like Amerindians were vulnerable to European diseases after 1492).

During the Migration Period those factors were not at play. Maybe Justinian's Plague in the 540s during Slavic expansion to the Balkans. But not earlier in the 300s-400s.

[Peterski]

Central Europe was severely affected by the plague, but Southern Europe had Proto-Cities when Northern Beakers started heading south.

The largest proto-cities (they were actually rather "mega villages", not cities like those in Mesopotamia or Egypt at that time) were those of the Trypillian culture.

And the Trypillian culture was the first victim of IE expansion (or did it collapse even before contact with IEs?). So they eliminated the most powerful enemy first.

=====

The largest settlements of the Trypillian culture had probably over 10,000 inhabitants, others had between hundreds and a few thousand:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4e/Archaeological_sites_Trypillian_culture_in_Ukraine .jpg

http://euromaidanpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/trypillya2.jpg

^^^ This sample (map below) is the eastern-most Trypillian DNA sample (just west of the Dnieper River):

I3719 Dereivka outlier - GEDmatch kit number QG9868760

https://i.imgur.com/q1fcoNw.png

[Token]

The largest proto-cities (they were actually rather "mega villages", not cities like those in Mesopotamia or Egypt at that time) were those of the Trypillian culture.

And the Trypillian culture was the first victim of IE expansion (or did it collapse even before contact with IEs?). So they eliminated the most powerful enemy first.

=====

The largest settlements of the Trypillian culture had probably over 10,000 inhabitants, others had between hundreds and a few thousand:

^^^ This sample (map below) is the eastern-most Trypillian DNA sample:

In the case of Trypillia, it was clearly a military conquest and had nothing to do with the plague. Trypillia was initially an agricultural society, but in Late Trypillia phase there was a sudden shift to pastoralism and establishment of trade links with the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Trypillia collapsed after people starting to move south into the steppe, for some unknown reason. If we sample Late Trypillian period, they will probably show steppe admixture.

[Western_French]

You guys seem to know a lot more than me about my own country. Thanks for all your input. I perceive my country like a transitional country between northern and southern Europe kind of. I think the Romans settle much more south of the Loire because the climate was more similar to their homeland and also more suitable to grow grapes in order to produce wine, this also may have mark the neat genetic distance between northern and southern French but it's just a theory, I am far from an expert in this matter. Nice weekend to everybody.

[Rgvgjhvv]

Aren't Acadians descended from Western France?

[Western_French]

From various western regions yes but also from Normandy.

[Peterski]

The Germanic influence in French language is quite huge.

^^^ So is French influence in English language, due to centuries of Norman rule after 1066 AD.

But what % of English autosomal ancestry is from that French-speaking ruling class? Any ideas?

All the studies only talk about Anglo-Saxon and Viking admixtures. Nobody mentions Normans.

And before you say that Norman cannot be distinguished from AS/Norse - not true. I suppose by the time of the Norman conquest of England, most people in William's army had genetics similar to modern-day French (especially North French). There were also people from other parts of France in William's army (e.g. Central French).

[Token]

^^^ So is French influence in English language, due to centuries of Norman rule after 1066 AD.

But what % of English autosomal ancestry is from that French-speaking ruling class? Any ideas?

All the studies only talk about Anglo-Saxon and Viking admixtures. Nobody mentions Normans.

And before you say that Norman cannot be distinguished from AS/Norse - not true. I suppose by the time of the Norman conquest of England, most people in William's army had genetics similar to modern-day French (especially North French). There were also people from other parts of France in William's army (e.g. Central French).

Aren't English moer southern than both Anglo-Saxons and Britons? There is the Norman admixture.

[Western_French]

The Norman army was apparently a mix of bretons, Normans (I doubt they were that different from nowadays Normans) and a bit of Flemish.

[Peterski]

After 1066 all of Anglo-Saxon nobility was deprived of noble status and replaced with French-speaking nobles.

This situation lasted for several centuries, until French-speaking nobles finally became Anglicized (IIRC in the 1300s).

That English nationalists in the 19th century started to consider Anglo-Saxons as their founding fathers, is no different from modern French identity being based on Gauls. In both cases these are peasant identities, as aristocracy in modern England has been of mainly Non-Anglo-Saxon stock.


Aren't English moer southern than both Anglo-Saxons and Britons? There is the Norman admixture.

Yeah. But this is not a very significant southern-shift. So probably genetic influence was much lower than cultural and linguistic influence in this case.

[Western_French]

Bretons and Normans have very similar DNA results to southern English people so I doubt their DNA signature will be easy to identify.

[Western_French]

I think modern-day French have significant Italian (Roman) admixture, just like modern-day Iberians (see: Olalde study on Iberians).

They speak Romance languages because they have significant Romance (Latin/Italian) ancestry.

Well, the fact we speak a latin language doesn't especially mean we have a significant amount of roman admixture, look at what the supposed little Norman army did to modern day English language. My own DNA (I am from Loire Atlantique) doesn't show a single trace of Roman admixture, still this doesn't stop me to feel a lot of admiration for them and for what they did for my country. They were also (like the normans in England) the ruling class at that period.

[Peterski]

My own DNA (I am from Loire Atlantique) doesn't show a single trace of Roman admixture

I know. I think that only Southern and Central France was affected by Roman admixture (as you already suggested in this thread).

Do you think that you have any Insular Celtic admixture from Britons who settled in Bretagne during the Early Middle Ages?

[Western_French]

I know. I think that only Southern and Central France was affected by Roman admixture (as you already suggested in this thread).

Do you think that you have any Insular Celtic admixture from Britons who settled in Bretagne during the Early Middle Ages?

I have no clue, I sent you my kit number , waiting for your expertise now :) Thanks in advance and hope this will help to demystify history !

[Western_French]

Could the fact that North-western french (Loire-Atlantique, Brittany, Normandy) and southern English being to similar genetically speaking the result of the same kind of mixture between germanic and celtic tribes occuring both side of the english channel you think ?

[Western_French]

But we don't know if they were always outliers, until we get ancient Gaulish samples.


A good place to study ancient Gauls is apparently the region of Massif central, less germanized than northern French, and less Romanized than southern French, apparently they would be genetically speaking the closest to ancient Gauls. How is it we don't have any French gaulish DNA samples btw, there must be plenty of skeletons we could extract DNA from in that area.

[Aren]

I'll predict that modern day English people are a threeway mix between Brythonic England, Germanic Scandinavia/Northern Germany and post-Roman era France. The Brythonic element might even be the smallest part out of the three and the Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian the largest, by a small margin.

[Western_French]

Could be but how do you explain the tiny genetic distance between north western france (Brittany and Loire Atlantique)/ Normandy and the southern part of England, from my knowledge the amount of Saxon in Normandy was minimal and the amount of norses was not that huge and Britanny only received some insular Celts and a very small amount of norses and no franks at all on the contrary of Normandy and Loire Atlantique.

[Aren]

Could be but how do you explain the tiny genetic distance between north western france (Brittany and Loire Atlantique)/ Normandy and the southern part of England, from my knowledge the amount of Saxon in Normandy was minimal.

But how similar are they really? I've seen Normans who are almost exactly like Englishmen, whilst other seem to fall closer to the Northern French/Belgian/Western German cluster.
Bretons are def closer to Irish than they are to the English, but somewhat more southern shifted. And who talked of Saxon influence only? I specifically said Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian(doesn't matter what you call it, early Germanics were all very similar). There's undoubtedly a lot of Germanic admix in Normandy and the other parts of Northern France.

[J. Ketch]

I'll predict that modern day English people are a threeway mix between Brythonic England, Germanic Scandinavia/Northern Germany and post-Roman era France. The Brythonic element might even be the smallest part out of the three and the Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian the largest, by a small margin.
You mean since the Norman conquest? I'd be very surprised if it was more than 5% across the whole of England, maybe more in the South East.

[Jana]

But how similar are they really? I've seen Normans who are almost exactly like Englishmen, whilst other seem to fall closer to the Northern French/Belgian/Western German cluster.
Bretons are def closer to Irish than they are to the English, but somewhat more southern shifted. And who talked of Saxon influence only? I specifically said Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian(doesn't matter what you call it, early Germanics were all very similar). There's undoubtedly a lot of Germanic admix in Normandy and the other parts of Northern France.

That doesn't align with what recent studies say: that Brits are mostly of native Brittonic stock and Anglo-Saxon admixture is highest in SE England, around 40%.

[Western_French]

But how similar are they really? I've seen Normans who are almost exactly like Englishmen, whilst other seem to fall closer to the Northern French/Belgian/Western German cluster.
Bretons are def closer to Irish than they are to the English, but somewhat more southern shifted. And who talked of Saxon influence only? I specifically said Anglo-Saxon/Scandinavian(doesn't matter what you call it, early Germanics were all very similar). There's undoubtedly a lot of Germanic admix in Normandy and the other parts of Northern France.

Livinski will be the best to reply regarding the similitude area. I am from Loire Atlantic and my closest population are South western English and South eastern English in that order, before any Irish. Also, we have a huge lack of samples in France which may explain why we always match closer to our neighbors but still the distances are really small with southern English in these 3 areas. My theory, but being far from an expert could be that either the Normans invading England were much more numerous that we previously thought or that a similar kind of blend between Germanic and Celtic tribes occurred both sides of the English channel but again I am far from being an expert, just trying to demystify the genetic mysteries. Maybe DNA research is not yet advanced enough and the actual calculators are not yet efficient enough. I don't know really.

[J. Ketch]

Could be but how do you explain the tiny genetic distance between north western france (Brittany and Loire Atlantique)/ Normandy and the southern part of England, from my knowledge the amount of Saxon in Normandy was minimal and the amount of norses was not that huge and Britanny only received some insular Celts and a very small amount of norses and no franks at all on the contrary of Normandy and Loire Atlantique.
Bretons are probably mostly of the earliest Bell Beaker stock that arrived there, just like Insular Celts. That's the only reason they would still cluster with the British Isles.

[Western_French]

Bretons are probably mostly of the earliest Bell Beaker stock that arrived there, just like Insular Celts. That's the only reason they would still cluster with the British Isles. that's a good theory I think and the Breton language would have come later on from a smaller group on insular Celts from Cornwall ?

[Not a Cop]

That doesn't align with what recent studies say: that Brits are mostly of native Brittonic stock and Anglo-Saxon admixture is highest in SE England, around 40%.

First of all i doubt the correctness of thoose studies, still Britons and A-S are pretty similar overall.

And secondly you have also to encompass Viking and Danish admixture, i would guess overall Germanic must be 35-60% in England.

[J. Ketch]

that's a good theory I think and the Breton language would have come later on from a smaller group on insular Celts from Cornwall ?
Or so the story goes. It would be interesting to know what genetic impact Britons had on Brittany, I have no clue but I never thought it would be that big.

[Western_French]

Maybe they were similar populatons both side of the channel that's it, but the Breton language is a mystery because it's directly linked to Cornish (which is now extinct) and very different from the gaulish branch of celtic languages apparently, so this language is the bridge between the 2, when did the bell beakers reach England exactly, were they already speaking that kind of language during their migration to the west ?

[Jana]

First of all i doubt the correctness of thoose studies, still Britons and A-S are pretty similar overall.

And secondly you have also to encompass Viking and Danish admixture, i would guess overall Germanic must be 35-60% in England.

There is some extra med in southern England too, maybe arrived with Romans or Normans.

[Voskos]

Any gedmatch results from monaco? Would love to see.

[Western_French]

Any gedmatch results from monaco? Would love to see. Livinski must have but would be pretty similar to North Italians for sure.

[Western_French]

Any gedmatch results from monaco? Would love to see.

Also, Monaco is the very special state with wealthy people from all over the place that came and settle there. I think it would be very difficult to find a kit of a person with a large genealogy native from that area

[Western_French]

There is some extra med in southern England too, maybe arrived with Romans or Normans.

I doubt Romans left a big DNA fingerprint in England, they didn't either in the northern part France and Normans had rather a northern foodprint, possibly higer than Southern English of that time in term of DNA. Still the Romans are one of my favorite ancient civisation but they seem to prefer the sun and hate the rain like me ;)

[Peterski]

So many new posts to read and respond to! I'm going to close the thread now and re-open it tomorrow when I'm up-to-date with discussion again. :)