Meta-Ethnicity and the French

[Psychonaut]

This is something I'd like to pose here. Many of these points could apply to the British as well, but as my experience is French, I'll limit myself to that. My question for y'all is this: does the concept of meta-ethnicity do anything to accurately describe the French? Now, I'm not really talking about what France has currently become since WWII with the massive influx of non-Europeans. But the French themselves are predominately a Celto-Germanic mix of Gallic, Frankish, and Burgundian blood who speak a Romance language. It seems to me that to place the French into either the Germanic, Celtic, Romance or even Celto-Germanic meta-ethnicity is to gloss over an important aspect of what makes the French who they are. I'm much more inclined to think that the French are more accurately described as being quintessentially Western (or Faustian as Spengler would put it), as our ancestors stood at the crossroads of the three meta-ethnic groups of old. We take part in all three, but belong exclusively to none. What do you guys think?

[Loki]

This is how I see it as well. Modern France is in a sense Romano-Celto-Germanic, but of course there are regional differences and regions where certain physical types and ancestries predominate.

Northeastern France is more accurately Celto-Germanic, whereas southern and western areas more Romano-Celtic. The Celtic part is perhaps the most common denominator, but Germanic peoples (Franks, Burgundians, Normans) played the largest role in the centuries preceding the modern era.

Interesting reading regarding this comes from Coon's Races of Europe (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XII2.htm).

[Mc Queen]

Good question.


The case of France was largely discussed on many places. Imo is even more complex than in your vision (Loki).


The question was about meta-ethnicity. A very wide concept, where cultural factors are VERY important and trascend any racial composition.

Usually the most universally accepted standard of metaethnic classification is the LANGUAGE. From this point of view, France is a ROMANCE country (like Italy to make a comparison).

Imo it's really difficult to say if France is more similar to Spain or to Germany culturally. There is no rational reason to believe french culture to be nearer to one than to another.

[Psychonaut]

Usually the most universally accepted standard of metaethnic classification is the LANGUAGE. From this point of view, France is a ROMANCE country (like Italy to make a comparison).

I don't think that language is the determinant in all cases. Certainly the American Negroes don't belong to the Germanic meta-ethnicity simply because they speak English.

[Jägerstaffel]

I definately agree with Psychonaut.
Language is a good start to define a culture but it isn't the end-all of it.

[Mc Queen]

I don't think that language is the determinant in all cases. Certainly the American Negroes don't belong to the Germanic meta-ethnicity simply because they speak English.


That's obvious. Such gap between race and language can't be denied.

The French case is rather ambiguous though. The question is : if NOT romance.......what then ?

[Æmeric]

Maybe the French belong to their own Gallic meta-ethnicity.

I think maybe you could say the same about the English & the Anglo-Saxon diaspora. Related linguitically & partially by blood (how Celtic are the English?) but over a thousand years of seperation from continental German(ic)s have lead to distinct differentness, more so then what exist between Germans & Swedes.

[Mc Queen]

Maybe the French belong to their own Gallic meta-ethnicity.


Easy and suggestive answer but very complex.

If the romance identity is questionable in French case......then is questionable in Spanish case (to make an interesting comparison).
Example : If we accept the existence of a dominant pre-roman substratum (Gallic) in the current French culture, then we could say the same about the existence of a dominant pre roman substatum (Iberic) in the current Spanish culture.

So........the french culture constitute a unique entity as much as the Spain does.


My fundamental (provokative) point is : if France isn't Romance........then Spain isn't romance either.

[Æmeric]

It's not that a Romance identity is questionable for the French but that there are other considerations. A Celtic & a much greater Germanic contribution in the case of the French vs. the Spaniards. And Spain, along with Italy, are unquestionably Mediterranean countries in culture & climate (as is Portugal despite not having a coastline on the Med). France lies partly to Northern Europe & to the Mediterranean world & this is a result of geography & natural frontiers:


http://images.encarta.msn.com/xrefmedia/aencmed/targets/maps/mhi/T041499A.gif

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/maps/europe/france/map_of_france.jpg

The boundaries of Gaul/France are fairly well defined by nature in the south & southeast (the Mediterranean world), it is in the North towards the Germanic world were there is much flunctuation. But France is not Germanic, it has too much Gallo-Romance influence, especially linguitically. It is a blending of 2 regions & cultures, that is why I say the French might be considered their own meta-ethnicity.

[Psychonaut]

That's obvious. Such gap between race and language can't be denied.

The French case is rather ambiguous though. The question is : if NOT romance.......what then ?

What I was really getting at with this thread is that attempting to 'fit' modern day France into the tight meta-ethnic groupings that existed prior to Clovis' conversion may be a fruitless endeavor. If you say that the French are Romance, then you're using language are your determinant, and since we know that the Roman R1b haplotype is not dominant in France, you'd end up having to discount the ancestry of most of France when determining their meta-ethnicity. If you go with a Celtic identity, although a large portion of France's ancestries are Gallic, Celtic culture and language have not dominated France since 50 B.C. Likewise, with a Germanic grouping, aside from only applying to select groups of Frenchmen, Germanic languages and culture have not dominated large parts of France for quite some time, since both the Franks and Normans 'converted' to the French language relatively quickly.

Where does this leave us? Do we try, as Loki did, and apply various combinations to different regions? Or can we, as Spengler did, look for a new label, one that gets to the very heart of French soul? After all, it does seem kind of strange that we're fixated on this one set of labels. We would recognize it as absurd to try and use Paleolithic or Neolithic tribal labels to group ourselves, but we think nothing of going back to pre-Merovingian times.

[TheGreatest]

French for a long time was an academic language so it was fairly easy for foreigners to assimilate and integrate.
Though this was a double spade, because French was also the academic language of the later French Colonial Empire. That reason in particular is why a lot of Lebanese migrated to Quebec and France

[TheGreatest]

It's not that a Romance identity is questionable for the French but that there are other considerations. A Celtic & a much greater Germanic contribution in the case of the French vs. the Spaniards. And Spain, along with Italy, are unquestionably Mediterranean countries in culture & climate (as is Portugal despite not having a coastline on the Med). France lies partly to Northern Europe & to the Mediterranean world & this is a result of geography & natural frontiers:

The boundaries of Gaul/France are fairly well defined by nature in the south & southeast (the Mediterranean world), it is in the North towards the Germanic world were there is much flunctuation. But France is not Germanic, it has too much Gallo-Romance influence, especially linguitically. It is a blending of 2 regions & cultures, that is why I say the French might be considered their own meta-ethnicity.


Though the term Germanic isn't that entrenched or specific. A lot of Frenchmen could be grouped into the category. Rather I am under the belief that it's the foreign culture that disqualifies a lot of Frenchmen. That being said, how many Frenchmen would happily accept such a term? And some will probably twist the entire term, citing that it's really the Western Germans who are of some Pan-Celtic race. :D ;) :tongue


Back on the topic.
Physically speaking, there are quite a lot of Austrians, Prussians and Southern Germans who are peripherals of non-Germanic phenotypes. (Mainly through absorption of Wendish peoples). And nevermind the small minorities who are of foreign phenotypes. For example, not a whole lot of Germans look like Goebbels, but a lot of Italians do.
In contrast, there are Frenchmen who fall under phenotypes that are supposedly more reflective of the arch Germanic types.

[Mc Queen]

It's not that a Romance identity is questionable for the French but that there are other considerations. A Celtic & a much greater Germanic contribution in the case of the French vs. the Spaniards.



Ok, that's right : Franks are estimated about 350'000 peoples in V° century A.D. (on a population of 5 millions of Gallo-romance inhabitants), while in Iberian Peninsula the number of Germanics is less than 100'000.



And Spain, along with Italy, are unquestionably Mediterranean countries in culture & climate (as is Portugal despite not having a coastline on the Med).


It's not exact. Iberian peninsula is totally mediterranean, while Italy is significantly continental. Especially the Alpine belt.


http://i44.tinypic.com/231qh5.png




The boundaries of Gaul/France are fairly well defined by nature in the south & southeast (the Mediterranean world), it is in the North towards the Germanic world were there is much flunctuation.


Sorry to contraddict you, but, the boundaries with southern Europe wasn't more defined than the boundary with northern Europe.

Alps aren't a impossible barrier. And Gauls settled over its line. A good example of it is the Cisalpine Gauls.


http://i39.tinypic.com/2d91dtj.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/2ut3m14.gif



Italy was part of the Gallic world. Si if this "gallic" ethnicity has some sense it should be applied to Italy too.






But France is not Germanic, it has too much Gallo-Romance influence, especially linguitically. It is a blending of 2 regions & cultures, that is why I say the French might be considered their own meta-ethnicity.


350'000 Franks on 5 millions peoples are indeed 7-8% of populations. So Germanic would be objectively LESS than 1/10 of population.

Besides......as i said above (and i repeat now) : if FRANCE deserve a category its own, then why not the same for SPAIN ?

Iberian peninsula wasn't inhabited by romans. Aborigenal population were Iberians.
So : if you choice to consider FRANCE as a civilisation its own cause its Gallic roots, you should do the same with SPAIN (to make a comparison).


to make even more short : to consider the GALLIC substratum of France, means to accept as base of our "subdivisions" the ethnic demarcations of pre-roman age. But in this case......neither France and neither Spain are romans.

I repeat : if France isn't roman, then we can doubt of the Spain too.

[Æmeric]

350'000 Franks on 5 millions peoples are indeed 7-8% of populations. So Germanic would be objectively LESS than 1/10 of population.
Plus the Burgundians in the east & the Visigoths in the south. And later the Vikings. And the Germanic tribes as the conquerors may have had greater opportunites to pass along their DNA then the conquered. After 20 generations (up to 900AD to 1000AD) the Franks & Burgundians may have been significant greater then the 7% or 8% they were in the 5th century.

But even if the Germanic contribution to the French genepool is under 10% that doesn't change the fact that the French should be considered their own meta-ethnicity. Lets say the base of the population is the Gauls. What is the genetic input from the Romans? Is it greater or less then the Germanic contribution? And who was the ancestors of the Gauls more closely related to, the proto-Germanics or the ancient inhabitants of the Italian peninsula?

Gallic influence may have extended over the Alps into Northern Italy but long term the southern Alps proved to be a natural boundary which put what was Cisalpine Gaul into the Italian realm of influence.

[Mc Queen]

Plus the Burgundians in the east & the Visigoths in the south. And later the Vikings. And the Germanic tribes as the conquerors may have had greater opportunites to pass along their DNA then the conquered. After 20 generations (up to 900AD to 1000AD) the Franks & Burgundians may have been significant greater then the 7% or 8% they were in the 5th century.


Burgundians and visigoths are minor apports since they were numerically LESS than Franks.

Even taking in account everybody....the germanic proper factor in the French gene pool don't exceed a solid 15%.




But even if the Germanic contribution to the French genepool is under 10% that doesn't change the fact that the French should be considered their own meta-ethnicity. Lets say the base of the population is the Gauls. What is the genetic input from the Romans?


Well........this objection can be easily, confuted : Iberian peninsula received about 200'000 roman colonists. But the aborigenal Iberian population was about 4 millions then ("Mc Avedy-and Jones" estimations, 1978).
It means : romans consituted 5% of Iberic population, while 95% are aborigenal Iberian.

So : Iberian peninsula ISN't roman genetically speaking. So it shouldn't be considered Romance if we accept genetic factor as determinant in the ethnic subdivision inside Europe.



And who was the ancestors of the Gauls more closely related to, the proto-Germanics or the ancient inhabitants of the Italian peninsula?


Gauls constituted about 35-40% of pre roman population in Italy (Cisalpine Gallia- Peter Brunt/1971 Cambridge university press) . Gauls of Cisalpine Gallia weren't different from the ones of Transalpine Gallia.

I just don't understand the need to let fit the historical facts with the CURRENT geographical-political notions.

It never existed an "italian" people, indeed.

[Æmeric]

Iberian peninsula received about 200'000 roman colonists. But the aborigenal Iberian population was about 4 millions then ("Mc Avedy-and Jones" estimations, 1978).
It means : romans consituted 5% of Iberic population, while 95% are aborigenal Iberian.

So : Iberian peninsula ISN't roman genetically speaking. So it shouldn't be considered Romance if we accept genetic factor as determinant in the ethnic subdivision inside Europe.

Well the thread title is "Meta-Ethnicity and the French", it's not about the Spaniards & whether or not they share a common Romance meta-ethnicity with the Italians. But subracially wouldn't the Spaniards be closer to the Italians then the French? In the same way that English Bruenns are closer to the Scandinavian Faelids then the are to West-Mediterranids of Spain or Italy?


It never existed an "italian" people, indeed.

I think someone just doesn't like being lumped into the same ethnicity as Sicilians & Southern Italians.;)

[Aemma]

...
Though this was a double spade, because French was also the academic language of the later French Colonial Empire. That reason in particular is why a lot of Lebanese migrated to Quebec and France

Well in a sense yes and no I would say. French didn't really become a regimented language until well into the 17th century and really didn't hit full throttle until the 18th century. This point of history has made for an interesting development of the French language in Canada in the end. If anything, native French here ie., that spoken by old stock French Canadians complete with our own vernacular 'joual', is much more reminiscent of the Norman French that was spoken by our very first ancestors who populated this part of the New World. In fact Norman French was the language of the courts by and large up until its 'reformation' and standardization. Given the fact that France ceded its New World lands to the British in 1763, the imposed regimentation of the French language had barely affected the development of the French language here. Out of sight, out of mind as it were. This is the reason that for some, if not many, Europeans who learn a more "International" French, they can have some difficulty in understanding our Canadian French. I even have a francophone European friend who claims that we do not even speak French here!! :rolleyes: It is undeniably Québécois to her but French, no way! What can I say!

As for non-Canadian francophones coming to settle here later on in our history, to wit the Lebanese and franco-arabics and Haitian immigrants, their French is just as foreign to us as ours is to them. The subtle cultural elements which make up a language can indeed be barriers to communication even among francophones until the New Canadian becomes more "Canadianized". I think perhaps the same could be said for most of the other major languages of the world as well in the end.

Cheers!...Aemma

[Mc Queen]

Well the thread title is "Meta-Ethnicity and the French", it's not about the Spaniards & whether or not they share a common Romance meta-ethnicity with the Italians. But subracially wouldn't the Spaniards be closer to the Italians then the French? In the same way that English Bruenns are closer to the Scandinavian Faelids then the are to West-Mediterranids of Spain or Italy?


I simply use the "Spain case" to make a valid comparison.

YOU state that France shouldn't grouped with other romance peoples since they don't share a genetic kinship.

But if this reasonment is valid........then Spain shouldn't be classed as romance either (as i showed they aren't descendants of romans.)

Through the comparison between FRANCE and SPAIN I'm simply pointing out a contraddiction in your lines.




But subracially wouldn't the Spaniards be closer to the Italians then the French?


1) Spain borders with France, not with Italy. I don't see why spaniards should be genetically closer to italians than to the French, taking in account that Italian borders are at 700-800 miles of distance from Spain.

[Æmeric]

YOU state that France shouldn't grouped with other romance peoples since they don't share a genetic kinship.I didn't say they didn't share a genetic kinship. I just implied that in the mixture that is French - Gallic, Gascon (Basque) Roman, Germanic, that maybe the French should be considered a seperate meta-ethnicity.

I should point out that the French themselves are a collection of regional ethnicities, Gascons, Bretons, Normans, etc... Another reason to maybe considered French to be a meta-ethnicity.


But if this reasonment is valid........then Spain shouldn't be classed as romance either (as i showed they aren't descendants of romans.) Well they are partially descended from Romans even if they weren't the most important genetic contribution.



1) Spain borders with France, not with Italy. I don't see why spaniards should be genetically closer to italians than to the French, taking in account that Italian borders are at 700-800 miles of distance from Spain. Who are the Quebecois more closely related to, the Yankees just across the border in Vermont or the French thousands of miles away?

Isn't the concept of "Meta-Ethnicity" something that was thought up at Skadi long ago? I think we can debate exactly what it is & what groupings constitute meta-ethnicities.

[Psychonaut]

Isn't the concept of "Meta-Ethnicity" something that was thought up at Skadi long ago? I think we can debate exactly what it is & what groupings constitute meta-ethnicities.

I was hoping this is where the discussion would lead. I didn't think that a discussion of the validity of meta-ethnic labels would go over terribly well there. ;)

I've never been terribly sure that taking a linguistic label and then trying, after the fact, to determine which genes, morphotypes, etc. fit in with that label was the best idea. I think that, perhaps, taking a more holistic look at things and making a determination based on several different categories, not just linguistic, would provide us with a better sense of what is truly meta-ethnic.

First off, we should look at the genetics of Europe for any broad geographic trends. The first thing that becomes apparent is that R is the dominant haplogroup on the continent and that the split between R1a and R1b generally delineates the split between what we might consider meta-ethnically Eastern and Western.

R1b:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/R1b_large_RG.jpg

R1a:

http://www.relativegenetics.com/genomics/images/haploMaps/originals/R1a_large_RG.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2054/2369492477_82f59a50d3_o.png

Similarly, we can look at the distributions of I1a as being generally Northern (radiating from Scandinavia) and E3b as Mediterranean (radiating from Greece and Northwest Africa).

I1a:

http://www.moonzstuff.com/images/dna_I1a_small_RG.jpg

E3b:

http://www.moonzstuff.com/images/dna_E3b_small_RG.jpg

Naturally, the genetic diversity of Europe is a lot more complex than that, but since meta-ethnicity is a generalization I think we can benefit from some generalized genetic trends.

Now, we know now that the shifts in the languages of Europe were generally not accompanied by full scale invasions which replaced the genes of the natives. Most of the large scale migrations we've seen on the continent took place in the Neolithic and Paleolithic eras. For example, we think that R1a is associated with the initial spread of the IE languages, yet this haplogroup is all but absent in the IE speaking regions of Western and Southern Europe. Since it appears that people of the same genetic stock have been inhabiting the same regions of Europe, being affected primarily by cultural/linguistic rather than genetic drift, it would seem to me that a meta-ethnic classification system would give primacy to that which is constant not transient.

That being said, I think there are broad cultural trends that seem to fit with the North, South, East, West divide. Spengler did an excellent job of examining differences between the Western (Faustian) and Southern (Apollonian) divide in The Decline of the West, just as Yockey gave a great case for the Eastern and Western split in Imperium.

So, I guess what I'm proposing is something that looks kind of like this:

154

[YggsVinr]

Agree pretty much with what Psychonaut and Loki have said. France has been influenced by all three groups, and one cannot definitively say that France is strictly Germanic, Celtic, or Romance. The importance of the correlation between region and ethnicity makes itself evident in a nation like France (though important to a degree in all nations, meta-ethnic differences do not tend to differ elsewhere in western European nations as they do in France). What's even more interesting is how those regional differences have managed to maintain themselves within North American settlements. I'm sure many who have grown up in French families in North America know well the differences between dialects influenced by Norman and Breton speech. We are both "French" and yet even our traditions and language across the ocean remain different from one another, and those who recognize their ancestral heritage in either region tend to understand themselves as either Germanic (Norman) or Celtic (Breton) despite the homeland's distance.

[Sigurd]

Gallia est omnes divisa in partes tres, de quam unam inhabitant Belgiae, aliam Aquitani, et tertiam....

I've always understood this division by Caesar to be a possible pointer towards the divisions between the ethnicities, possibly meta-ethnicities in Gaul. There is a clear division there --- it be possible that the Belgians were understood to be the Germanics, the Aquitanians to be Iberian/Romance/Celtiberian at best, whilst the majority of Gaul was understood to be Celtic/"Gallic"?!

Later came a Germanic pointer with the Normans, others were mainly in command such as the Franks, Burgundians etc without replacing the original population of these areas as a whole, the influence of Franks and Burgundians, etc. I would not necessarily call greater than that of the Swedes on the Rus --- acting as rulers but not replacing the majority of the population. That seems to have been only done by the Normans, so I understand.

On a more humorous note, the Celticness of Breizh/Britanny we probably have to thank Asterix etc. for... :D

[Psychonaut]

Later came a Germanic pointer with the Normans, others were mainly in command such as the Franks, Burgundians etc without replacing the original population of these areas as a whole, the influence of Franks and Burgundians, etc. I would not necessarily call greater than that of the Swedes on the Rus --- acting as rulers but not replacing the majority of the population. That seems to have been only done by the Normans, so I understand.

Since the Normans are nearly single handedly responsible for the presence of both R1a and I1a in France, it's a bit easier to gauge their genetic impact than it is the Franks. However since the Normans, coming from Norway and Denmark, would have also had moderate levels of R1b, we don't really have a crystal clear picture of just how big of an impact they made. The Franks, like their cousins the Saxons, would have been predominately R1b, again making it very difficult to judge just how large their impact was.

[Osweo]

So much for history, ethnology and other theoretical considerations, but there's a big practical consideration here: What pre-Christian worlds speak to Frenchmen shrugging off the old religion? How are the various options competing, if at all? One question to les Normands, and un autre pour les Poitevins, n'est pas?


Oh, and ...
Just a footnote here, perhaps, but a fascinating one:

THere's a lot more to be said for Germanic colonisation, in all regions, than many think. Toponymy's an interesting means to look at this. A place name after an ethnic group will surely have constituted a pretty serious and noticeable group. See below;


Peoples and Place-names (et departementes):
Burgunds; Bourgogne (Marne), la Bourgonce (Vosges), Bourgougnague (L&G)

Goths; Gouts (Aube), Goudourville (T&G), Gouirvieille (Aude), Gourville(tte) (Charente, CM), Villegoudou (Tarn), Villegouge (Gironde), Montgueux (Aube)

Marcomans; Marmegne (Cher, CdO, S&L), Marmeaux (Youre), Miermaigne (E&L)

Alamans; Allemans (Dordogne, L&G), Allemant (Aisne, Marne), Allemagne (AHP, Calvados, Aube), Aumagne (CM), Allemanche (Marne), Almeneches (Orne), Aumenancourt (Marne), Lamanon (BdR)

Franks; Francorchamps (Wallonia), Francourville (E&L), Francs (Gironde), Frencq (PdC)

Seaxe!; Saisseval (Somme), Saxonsion (M&M), Soissons (CdO), Sissone (Aisne)

Suevi; Wissous (Essonne) {< Viceor < Vicus Suevorum}

Taifali (Gothic sept); Tiffauges (Vendee), Touffailles (T&G), Chauffailles {c.f. Tealby, Lincolnshire, England!}

Vandals, Gandaille (L&G), Gandalou (T&G),

Silinges (Vandal sept); Sillingy (Haute Savoie)

ENGLE; Englesqueville (Calvados, SM, Marne), Anglesqueville (SM)

Normans; ah, you know; every other place up in the Nord.

Maybe a drop in the pond, but not too insignificant. The category of Germanic derived place-names apart from these blatant ethnonyms is enormous.

We have the suffixes from Germanic -ing, for instance:
-ingue, ingues, inghen, inghem in the Ingvaeonic North.
-ange in the Ripuarian zone of settlement.
-ans from the Burgunds.
-ens in Visigothic areas.

Have a look at a map, they're hardly rare. And were it nothing but an elite exchange phenomenon, the forms would be Roman, not Germanic, just with Germanic personal names at the beginning and so on.

[Mesrine]

Agree pretty much with what Psychonaut and Loki have said. France has been influenced by all three groups, and one cannot definitively say that France is strictly Germanic, Celtic, or Romance.

We're strictly Romance, for the simple fact that we speak a Romance language.



Gallia est omnes divisa in partes tres, de quam unam inhabitant Belgiae, aliam Aquitani, et tertiam....

I've always understood this division by Caesar to be a possible pointer towards the divisions between the ethnicities, possibly meta-ethnicities in Gaul. There is a clear division there --- it be possible that the Belgians were understood to be the Germanics, the Aquitanians to be Iberian/Romance/Celtiberian at best, whilst the majority of Gaul was understood to be Celtic/"Gallic"?!

We don't know what the Belgae really were. A Celto-Germanic mingling, celtized Germanics, another Western IE group, intermediate between Celtic and Germanic? Who knows?



On a more humorous note, the Celticness of Breizh/Britanny we probably have to thank Asterix etc. for... :D

Astérix is Armorican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armorica), not Breton.

[Osweo]

We don't know what the Belgae really were. A Celto-Germanic mingling, celtized Germanics, another Western IE group, intermediate between Celtic and Germanic? Who knows?
The 'mystery' is over-stated. The toponymy and other onomastica are solidly Celtic, except in cases of blatant Germanic pockets which were reasonably well documented by Caesar.

[Murphy]

Perhaps French is its self a meta-ethnicity?

Regards,
Eóin.

[Brännvin]

Since the Normans are nearly single handedly responsible for the presence of both R1a and I1a in France, it's a bit easier to gauge their genetic impact than it is the Franks. However since the Normans, coming from Norway and Denmark, would have also had moderate levels of R1b, we don't really have a crystal clear picture of just how big of an impact they made. The Franks, like their cousins the Saxons, would have been predominately R1b, again making it very difficult to judge just how large their impact was.

Actually many them were from Skåneland (Scania) also ;), who entered what is now Normandy, they were a small military elite who usually bred with local women in Northern France, genetically the impact was small..

The R1a, in France, possibly had already entered before with the Franks..

About France, I see them as a Latin-Romance country in culture, and identidy, of course, with others influences during its history..

[Hussar]

Perhaps French is its self a meta-ethnicity?

Regards,
Eóin.


No, i don't think. Why such honour ?

[The Lawspeaker]

No, i don't think. Why such honour ?
Actually - he has a point. The French are not fully Romanche, not fully Celtic, not fully Germanic- not fully anything.
Except for French.

[Hussar]

Actually - he has a point. The French are not fully Romanche, not fully Celtic, not fully Germanic- not fully anything.
Except for French.


Maybe it's the opinion of some peoples, but.........objectively (technically), they aren't anthing other than Romance.

There isn't a scale of "Romanceness" as for "Germanicness". You're Romance or you aren't actually.

At best........we could estabilish demarcation inside the romance world (north-romance, southern romance, western romance, etc.), but it's very theoretical and not supported by any scientific branch i know (linguistic, anthropology, etc.).

[Brännvin]

Actually - he has a point. The French are not fully Romanche, not fully Celtic, not fully Germanic- not fully anything.
Except for French.

They speak a Latin-romance language, does not it have a predominant weight?

..although, in fact, only the French people who can define themselves actually!

[The Lawspeaker]

They speak a Latin-romance language, does not it have a predominant weight?

..although, in fact, only the French people who can define themselves actually!
Well.. my French is rather thin on the ground but I wonder how much French has in common with the languages of it's Romanche neighbors.

[Brännvin]

Well.. my French is rather thin on the ground but I wonder how much French has in common with the languages of it's Romanche neighbors.

Obviously more in common than with the their Germanic neighbors :P

..not for nothing the French is currently a Latin language.

[Damião de Góis]

French is a latin language but i would say that to me it's the most dificult latin language apart from romanian. A spanish or italian text is easier to me.

I never studied any of them. Took french in high school but i didn't learn much.

[Tony]

Well.. my French is rather thin on the ground but I wonder how much French has in common with the languages of it's Romanche neighbors.
French is undoubtely a romance language even it's more difficult to learn than say Spanish , in my view mostly because there's not a direct mirroring between the written form and the spoken one , in that sense it looks more similare to English than the other romance cousins , find it easier to understand in the written form anyway.

[Johnston]

This is how I see it as well. Modern France is in a sense Romano-Celto-Germanic, but of course there are regional differences and regions where certain physical types and ancestries predominate.

Northeastern France is more accurately Celto-Germanic, whereas southern and western areas more Romano-Celtic. The Celtic part is perhaps the most common denominator, but Germanic peoples (Franks, Burgundians, Normans) played the largest role in the centuries preceding the modern era.

Interesting reading regarding this comes from Coon's Races of Europe (http://www.theapricity.com/snpa/chapter-XII2.htm).
I would say that France is Celtic in l'Oil, Romance in d'Oc, and Germanic on general terms. After all, the country never took a Latin name, but first Celtic and then Germanic. There is also knowledge of the Romance of Provence, and Langedoc, whilst the capital Paris (Lutetia Parisiorum) had a cousin called Petuaria Parisiorum (Brough) in Yorkshire, England. This Celtic relation was overcome by the Germanic, and indeed, Gaul was Germanified, even as the language and religion remain mostly Roman--a consequence of being an acquired territory of Rome. Romanisms in the South overwhelm the true identity of the nation. You could say there is disproportionate influence by the Romance influence, because of the ties in the Mediterranean, and the connections between Rome, Pisa, and Avignon.

So, the French are a Germanic people. They would not go by this name if they did not agree with it. Otherwise, Celtic in North and Romance in South. Paris is Celtic (although this is the historic Duchy of the Franks), Mariseille is Romance.

[gandalf]

France is the largest area populated by celtic tribes ,
so the meta-ethnicity is celtic for ancestry .
Blended by wide contributions of german blood in the north ,
and iberian , ligurian in the south .

For language it is romance but clearly influenced by celt and frankish .

So France is north western by blood , and romano-celtic for language .

The closest country is UK as they have the same kind of genetic inputs
only more germanic , and the closest no-roman language .

After , as the situation is complex , each individual declares for his meta-ethnicity the one that suits the most for him .

[Böri]

Latin-Germanic mix obviously genetically they are mostly from the Gallic Celtic tribes. If a line must be drawn between the Latin and Germanic zones, it would be difficult.

[Aspar]

This is the case for Macedonians as well.
We can not identify entirely as Slavic just because we speak a Slavic language.