[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.

[Advertise on 4chan]

File: Gaul.jpg (16 KB, 226x223)
16 KB
Are they Gauls like they claim? Is it possible to have the percentage of french peole blood? Like i dont know 75% gaul, 5% Breton, 5% basque, 5% catalonian, 3% flemish, 4% alsatian (alamans) 1% viking (normandy/brittany) and 2% other (burgundians/romans/greeks/saxons/wisigoths/ostrogoths etc)

I mean the indigenous population of France not the actual population of France full of africans im talking about real french like Benjamin Pavard, Jean Pierre Papin, Jean Dujardin, Jacques Chirac, Bernard Tapie, Bernard Hinault, Emmanuel Petit, Didier Deschamps, Alain Delon, Guy Forget etc not N'gubu and Abdelakbar Ben Couscous
South is spanish clay (genetically speaking)

what part? i dont think so

the italians are right about saying that corsica is italian but the south being spanish ive never heard that
File: F2.large.jpg (151 KB, 1280x614)
151 KB
151 KB JPG
French (so-called Northern French) are Frankish; Bretons are Celtic; Provençaux are Italic, and Southrons are Iberian; Gascons are Basque.

what means all these colors ?
Genes. Deep Blue is Frankish; Light Blue is Roman; Yellow is Iberian; Pink is Celtic; and Dark Red is Basque.
Target: French_Paris
Distance: 0.8631% / 0.00863057 | R4P
48.6 England_SaxonIA_germanic
33.0 FRA_SouthEast_IA2_gaul
11.2 ITA_Daunian_italic
7.2 TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Camandras_Dalagöz_Rom

i find that really hard to believe that France is so less celtic, its strange whereas theyre supposed to be Gauls

from where is this study anonbro?
Saint Pierre, A., Giemza, J., Alves, I. et al. The genetic history of France. Eur J Hum Genet 28, 853–865 (2020).
das rite, yellow = rightful spanish clay
Primarily Gallic, however Gauls exhibit variation with some of them being darker like Northern Spaniards (descendants of Celtiberians and Britons and to a small extent Germanics) and some being lighter similar to the Germans, Belgians, Dutch, and English.
Overall, Gauls with regional variation based on interactions with their neighbors.
Similar to how Scandinavians are all one people but Swedes are more like Balts than Norwegians are and Norwegians are more like the Irish than Swedes are.
The pink means Briton (welsh, breton, old britonic) celtic, rather than continental celtic.

The bretons themselves came to britanny en masse only after the start of the anglo saxon invasion of the british isles.
France isn't samples enough to tell. It wasn't homogeneous in ancient times.
This stuff might actually reflex a much more ancient heritage tha claimed.
Close enough. The outliers are either WHG-heavy neolithics or EBA samples (clustering with Swedes). One Iron Age sample from Alsace clusters with Swedes.
The very Med like modern samples are Corsicans.
I would say there's pretty strong overlap between modern and ancient French samples.
Ironic how the early German nationalists claimed that Germans are pure Germanics unlike the French who are some kind of muttland.
South France is continental Celtic.
Most of the north is Germanic (Frankish), excepting Brittany, which is insular Celtic.
Pre-Germanic samples from North France are already very Northern.
Considering the majority of French are R1B like the Spanish, Irish and British, they are likely descended from the Gaulish pop in their majority, yes.
It's different genetic clusters.
>Using FineSTRUCTURE, six different genetic clusters of individuals were found that were very consistent between the two cohorts. These clusters correspond closely to geographic, historical, and linguistic divisions of France, and contain different proportions of ancestry from Stone and Bronze Age populations. By modeling the relationship between genetics and geography using EEMS, we were able to detect gene flow barriers that are similar across the two cohorts and correspond to major rivers and mountain ranges.
>Genes. Deep Blue is Frankish; Light Blue is Roman; Yellow is Iberian; Pink is Celtic; and Dark Red is Basque.
Wrong. But the Franks definitely influenced the NO (north) cluster the most.
>An important division separates Northern from Southern France. It may coincide with the von Wartburg line, which divides France into “Langue d’Oïl” part (influenced by Germanic speaking) and “Langue d’Oc” part (closer to Roman speaking)—Fig S20. This border has changed through centuries and our north-south limit is close to the limit as it was estimated in the IXth century [47, 48]. This border also follows the Loire River, which has long been a political and cultural border between kingdoms/counties in the north and in the south (Fig. 1).
You've confused yourself.
Well he started asking questions that merit a discussion and ended it with the obligatory almost obsequious nod to the negroid that all 4chan must pay tribute to in every post it seems. Why are you all obsessed with us. Can you say anything without mentioning us. Can your wives live without our cocks. Can your land survive and thrive without us. All rhetorical questions since I know y'all worship the negro.

Pink: Brittonic (Insular Celt)
Dark Blue: Belgic (Northern Continental Celt)
Yellow: Gallic (Southern Continental Celt)
Light Red: Frankish
Light Blue: Ligurian
Dark Red: Basque

Germanoboos are so deluded. Only the ruling class were Frankish.
Touch grass.

>Yellow is Iberian
code for arabs
File: Celtic.jpg (69 KB, 623x840)
69 KB
>One Iron Age sample from Alsace clusters with Swedes.
Someone from a Germanic tribe?
Useless meme chart. France isn't majority Germanic by any means, but there were strong Germanic influences north and east of the Loire, corresponding to the settlements of the Franks, Alamani, and the Burgundians.
File: r1b subclades.png (113 KB, 682x814)
113 KB
113 KB PNG
Northern French are mostly celtic, not germanic.
File: Germanic_Europe.png (64 KB, 800x545)
64 KB
It's the truth.
I don't dispute that, but the Germanic element is substantial. Northern Celts and Germanics weren't that different from each other in the first place anyway.
So are these charts of modern Y dna samples or what? These charts don't tell you much without more information and analysis. What time period? The only data that has relevance is data that captures historical DNA to show movement through time.

shows the dominant R1b haplogroup in present-day western Europe. Couldn't find the source.

shows paternal lineages associated with the spread of Germanic peoples from the Iron Age onwards.
French is not an ethnic group. It's a nationality.
Even without nationalism, French meets every definition of an ethnicity. Are there French nationals that are not ethnically French? yes.
File: mtDNA in Europe.jpg (39 KB, 460x391)
39 KB
File: Whiteness.png (214 KB, 862x2309)
214 KB
214 KB PNG
They're a threeway Bronze Age muttmix of PIE/WHG/EEF like every single other fucking European, spastic.
Their common language is French. That's what makes people French. Speaking French.
>threeway Bronze Age
Fourway Mesolithic one. The EHG-CHG mix in Eastern Europe wasn't stable, and chuds are still arguing about whether it was CW or PG, so using EHG and CHG components separately will be better.
File: 1674695607835.jpg (30 KB, 581x201)
30 KB
Not a big difference. Is this "Balto-Slavic drift" a meme?
I didn't say there was a big difference. But when has that ever stopped racial fantasists and their ridiculous delusions.
Every living human being shares 99.9% of their genetic code and a recent common origin from Sub-Saharan Africa.
Even the 2 most genetically distant humans are still remarkably close genetically.
>Fourway Mesolithic one
No it's threeway, and arguably twoway since the WHG admixture was from EEF women who already had WHG admixture.
Basically Steppe men raped EEF women who had around 20-30% WHG admixture on average through WHG males raping EEF women in the Neolithic.

But of course like you say it gets more complicated if you start including all the admixture events that led to PIEs themselves or EEFs themselves or WHGs themselves.
Everyone's a mutt. Everyone always has been a mutt.
There is no purity.

PIEs were complete mutts. From what I understand they were some mix of ANE and EHG and CHG and God knows what else...
ANE themselves were mutts. CHG were mutts. EHG were mutts.
It's a complete mess.
File: Germania.png (53 KB, 1081x560)
53 KB
>Is this "Balto-Slavic drift" a meme?
Drift would only happen if the populations hadn't experienced regular lowlevel (and in some instances high level) admixture events since. They have. There has been near constant admixture between Germanic and Slav and (formerly) Celtic and Germanic and Italic and everything else under the Sun.
Drift hasn't really occurred. Europe still operates on a genetic continuum clustering by geography. There are no hard breaks.
>WHG admixture was from EEF women
>Everyone's a mutt.
>PIEs were complete mutts.
>From what I understand
You understood nothing. They were mostly 3/4 EHG and 1/4 CHG, though there was just not a stable per cent because there was no one population.
We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzee and 50% with bananas.
Can you name for me a population that isn't mutted?

Yeah it was. Idiot.

They were literally 50% EHG and 50% CHG. EHG themselves were a mix of ANE and something else.
You have no idea what you're talking about, I see.

>They were mostly 3/4 EHG and 1/4 CHG
No they weren't.
>We share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzee
And we're incredibly similar to chimpanzees.

>50% with bananas.
And we're considerably less similar to a banana than we are a chimpanzee or another human.
But ultimately yes, we do have a common ancestry with a banana.
You are aware of that, right?
>population that isn't mutted
Northern Europeans, Ahmed.
>Northern Europeans
See >>14529867
They don't stop being mutts just because it happened X amount of time ago, you coping spastic.
You are a mutt. I am a mutt. I'm sorry to break it to you.

But like I said, nothing will stop racial fantasists embracing and entertaining their delusions. They will stoop to any level of mental gymnastics in order to prop up their delusions.
They are of the same ilk as flatearthers, really.
anyone knows why does the brittany sample always pick so much saxon?

Target: French_Brittany
Distance: 0.6848% / 0.00684848 | R4P
51.6 England_SaxonIA_germanic
18.8 Scotland_IA_Briton
15.2 ITA_Daunian_italic
14.4 FRA_Occitanie_IA2_gaul

i though it may have been mixed with celt but i tried modelling it and it models it as a allemanic with danish and swedish influence and less than 10-15% celtic

Target: England_SaxonIA_germanic
Distance: 1.2811% / 0.01281054 | R4P
55.2 DEU_MA_Alemannic_germanic
20.0 DNK_Jutland_IA
17.6 SWE_IA_germanic
7.2 FRA_Alsace_IA2_gaul

Target: England_SaxonIA_germanic
Distance: 1.2384% / 0.01238404
41.8 DEU_MA_Alemannic_germanic
18.8 DNK_Jutland_IA
12.8 SWE_IA_germanic
12.2 NLD(netherlands)_LIA_germanic
7.2 Scotland_IA_Briton
5.0 FRA_Alsace_IA2_gaul
2.2 FRA_HDF_IA2_gaul
is the coverage maybe?

the parisian sample picks like 50% saxon as well and the rest imperial roman scraps

Target: French_Paris
Distance: 0.8404% / 0.00840420
49.0 England_SaxonIA_germanic
20.0 FRA_SouthEast_IA2_gaul
10.8 ITA_Daunian_italic
6.2 Iberia_East_IA
5.6 TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Camandras_Dalagöz_Rom
4.0 FRA_HDF_IA2_gaul
2.6 GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA
1.2 FRA_Occitanie_IA2_gaul
0.6 SWE_IA_germanic
basically all NW european models i put the saxon in always grab massive ammounts of it.

Target: Norwegian
Distance: 0.6446% / 0.00644641
53.2 England_SaxonIA_germanic
15.8 SWE_IA_germanic
8.4 Scotland_IA_Briton
7.8 NLD_LIA_germanic
5.8 FRA_Occitanie_IA2_gaul
5.0 DNK_Jutland_IA
3.0 CZE_Early_Slav
0.6 FRA_Champagne_IA2_Gaul
0.4 HUN_Avar_Early_Danube-Tisza

Target: Danish
Distance: 0.5274% / 0.00527400
59.8 England_SaxonIA_germanic
10.8 CZE_Early_Slav
9.6 SWE_IA_germanic
7.2 Scotland_IA_Briton
6.6 FRA_HDF_IA2_gaul
3.8 NLD_LIA_germanic
2.2 FRA_SouthEast_IA2_gaul
File: Muttden.png (39 KB, 171x448)
39 KB
>Northern Europeans
Northern Europeans are actually some of the most mutted people there are. Scandinavians are like a threeway split of R1b/R1a/I and then the remainder is several types of minority Y-DNA.
They are by far the most mutted of the Indo-European daughter peoples of Europe, ironically.
Their mtDNA is even more mixed.
And that's not even including all the recent immigrants. That's just including, for example, ethnic Swedes who only make up around 60% of the population of most regions of Sweden these days.

They are most certainly mutts.
But go on.. let's hear your cope. Let's hear how it's 'different' when northern Europeans do it.

Tedious cunt.
Target: Portuguese
Distance: 0.5105% / 0.00510461
22.2 Iberia_Northeast_c.8-12CE
12.2 FRA_Occitanie_IA2_gaul
11.4 Canary_Islands_Guanche
11.0 ITA_Daunian_italic
10.4 FRA_HDF_IA2_gaul
8.6 FRA_SouthEast_IA2_gaul
6.0 FRA_Alsace_IA1_gaul
5.8 Iberia_LIA
3.2 TUR_Aegean_Mugla_Camandras_Dalagöz_Rom
3.0 Iberia_IA
2.0 Scotland_IA_Briton
1.4 Iberia_Southeast_c.10-16CE
1.2 England_SaxonIA_germanic
1.2 GRC_Mycenaean_Palace_of_Nestor_BA
0.2 England_EastYorkshire_IA_briton
0.2 Levant_Ashkelon_IA2

it seems to be NW european specific however, it doesn't pumps in southroons; my it be related to the fact it is one of the few germanic types without slavic drift we have? may have been similar to franks
There is no EHG outside Northern Europe besides migrations from it. We have a half of EHG-ancestry, the maximum. Get over it, Ahmed.
>We have a half of EHG-ancestry
Half means you're mutted. And you don't have half EHG. You have half WSH. WSH weren't fully EHG. They were around 50% EHG. You fucking moron.
So you're 25% EHG, at best, on average.

And actually you're not the highest in Steppe. There are several regions neighboring you higher in Steppe.

You seem to basically be conceding you're mutts now though. So yeah thanks for playing.
you are russian, not nordic
>French meets every definition of an ethnicity.
>There is no EHG outside Northern Europe besides migrations from it.
EHG doesn't even come from northern Europe. It comes from fucking Eastern Europe. EHGs (or at least WSHs with significant EHG ancestry in addition to CHG ancestry) expanded into northern and other regions of Europe in the Bronze Age, not the other way around.

Why does being a mutt bother you so much? Like I said, every human is a mutt. All that mutt ancestry you have goes back to the same place if you trace it far enough, Sub-Saharan Africa.
File: 1674698535635.jpg (107 KB, 1080x542)
107 KB
107 KB JPG
Russians are the most advanced among all Nordic peoples.
Such an imbecile, lmao.
>Everyone's a mutt
In a genetic sense you're right, but this is the wrong takeaway. You can descend from different sources and still form a cohesive group.
>And we're incredibly similar to chimpanzees.
Yeah, but we're not chimpanzees are we? Anon's point is that despite differing very little, we can't just handwave away the difference.
You look like a fucking mutt to me.
>Western Steppe Herders are considered descended from Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs) who reproduced with Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (CHGs), and the WSH component is analysed as an admixture of EHG and CHG ancestral components in roughly equal proportions, with the majority of the Y-DNA haplogroup contribution from EHG males.
>This migration is linked to the origin of both the Corded Ware culture, whose members were of about 75% WSH ancestry, and the Bell Beaker ("Eastern group"), who were around 50% WSH ancestry

Basic percentages and mathematics too much for you?
Pretty pathetic. I have blond hair and blue eyes, for the record. Im still a mutt, and I have far more of the ancestry you worship so much than you do. Idiot.
Yeah so basically cope. The mutting doesn't matter because it happened X amount of time ago. Cope.
You're an idiot. And a mutt.
2 biological brothers differ very little genetically. You can distinguish between them in a test genetically. Are they different races?
Most humans share more than 99.9% of their genetics. That's just the extreme end (taking 2 remote, reclusive tribal groups from different parts of the world who have not had common ancestry for hundreds of thousands of years).
Most share considerably more of their genetic code than that.

Where's the line? At what genetic distance do people form different peoples.
Because when you set that distance. The 'genetic borders' of humanity aren't going to look anything like what you think they are going to look like.
Believe me.
File: 1674699197836.jpg (98 KB, 1080x468)
98 KB
>meme wiki quote as an argument
Delusional abomination.
Oh, you are this "Celts doesn't exist" dude. No, you have not, fellow oaf.
>Celts doesn't exist
They objectively don't. They overlap and overcluster Germanic people and speak Germanic languages.
It's like claiming northwestern Slavs are some dead ethnolinguistic group that happened to live in the region before Slavic languages replaced them.

But fair enough you have more Steppe. I have more HG. You have marginally less Farmer.
We're both still mutts of the same 3 populations. We have marginally different ratios.
We're still mutts. I'm sorry to break it to you.
When did you change your narrative from "Iron Age tribes do not exist because of Yamnaya" to "We all are le mutts because of something"?
we are all Saxons
Celts weren't a tribe. It was an ethnolinguistic group. There were countless different Celtic tribes. They were grouped as Celtic because they spoke Proto-Celtic or languages descended from it.
Proto-Celtic itself descended from Proto-Indo-European along with Proto-Germanic, Proto-Italic, Proto-Slavic etc. etc.
That's it.

As for their ancestry, Celtic tribes had all different ratios of PIE/WHG/EEF like every other European group of the time.
They didn't even cluster closely with one another genetically.

We literally are all mutts. It's just an observable genetic reality.
File: 1674700202299.jpg (412 KB, 2132x1661)
412 KB
412 KB JPG
>didn't even cluster closely
They did, though Continental Celts and Insular Celts are really different from each other which also have linguistic evidence. We easily differ the Continental ones from Germanics, Italics, and Slavs, though the Insular ones are more difficult in dividing.
You barely understand what this is supposed to mean, though you are an EFL. Are picrel not mutts?
>They did
No they didn't. Continental Celts in France alone had very different rates of PIE/WHG/EEF. That's probably the reason for the Belgica/Celtic/Aquitania divides of Gaul.
Belgica tended to be around 50% Steppe. Celtica tended to be around 40% Steppe. Aquitania tended to be around 30% or lower Steppe.
Celtic tribes in the Balkans have been found with 20% or so Steppe.
Celts in Iberia had low Steppe.

It was all over the place.
And yes like you say the "Insular Celts" were quite genetically distinct being around 50% or sometimes higher in Steppe, and cluster closer to those of the Proto-Germanic homelands than the Proto-Celtic homelands, ironically enough.

So yes it was an ethnolinguistic group.

>Are picrel not mutts?
Yes they are mutts. And btw all the populations you've listed there themselves were mixed.
There is no purity. There is always admixture if you go back far enough.
Anyway I must sleep, Slavfriend. I apologize for my earlier saltiness. Sometimes I just get angered and start attacking people on this board. It produces the worst in me, which is why I rarely post here anymore.
I bear you no illwill. or any other Slavs.

Everyone is a mutt. Who even cares. I speak English and hate almost everyone.
File: 1674701432465.jpg (86 KB, 1080x327)
86 KB
>all over the place
Because they were not genetically Celts, isn't it simple? Continental Celts are clearly only La Tene and its descendants.
>there themselves were mixed
They are not. Between Neolithic (7000 years ago) Chinese and the modern one is such a distance as it between me and the closest to me modern population, and between them and the Mesolithic ones distance is only marginally more.
You don't know what your "mutt" should mean.
Good night, anon.
Even with the Paleolithic ones. That is not a good point.
>Who were the original people who are connected to modern French?
A mix of Ligurians, Danubians, Vascones, and Celts
>Who are the modern French mostly descended from?
20% NIGGER, 40% Gaul, 30% Italian, 10% Germanic
>Between Neolithic (7000 years ago)
These Yellow River samples are like from 3000 BCE.
Not such a big difference, especially if we see the distance to this 17000 BCE sample.

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.