Genetically Southern French and most Iberians are almost identical

[Angela]

I agree! His ratio of Northern European vs Southern European on DNA Land seems about right for his location in France. 50/50 makes sense to me for Auvergne. My French Canadian Mom is 57/43 north vs south and my Wallonia Belgian father is 67/33.

My question is how much of that Southern European is from the Neolithic and and how much was influenced by Roman occupation and settlement?

The consensus used to be that Roman settlement had little impact on other countries. I don't agree with that. However, I would speculate much more of the former (Neolithic) than the latter (Roman), although I don't think it's possible to know from the evidence we have. The Romans did found colonies in other places. That's the best evidence we have, I think. Keep in mind, though, that the number of people per colony varied by area. In the beginning it was about 300 people per colony, as was the case for Parma. After Augustus, thousands of veterans were given land in this way, but that's scattered over huge territories. Then, after a certain point, the empire changed, and no more colonies were established. In Gaul, they preferred the south, but more south/central and southeast than southwest. We also have to keep in mind that parts of southeast France don't show "colonies" because it was either very mountainous or was already part of "our" Gaul. Interestingly, there are more colonies in Gaul "proper" than in northern Italy. Luna is the only one in my area, although it was a large and very prosperous city.

That map is nothing compared to this interactive and digital one though. It's absolutely great. You can look for your own areas and see not only what was there, but the road network as well.
http://pelagios.org/maps/greco-roman/

It's good to take a look at Maciamo's map of the Cardial Neolithic in France too.

 

[mwauthy]

The consensus used to be that Roman settlement had little impact on other countries. I don't agree with that. However, I would speculate much more of the former (Neolithic) than the latter (Roman), although I don't think it's possible to know from the evidence we have. The Romans did found colonies in other places. That's the best evidence we have, I think. Keep in mind, though, that the number of people per colony varied by area. In the beginning it was about 300 people per colony, as was the case for Parma. After Augustus, thousands of veterans were given land in this way, but that's scattered over huge territories. Then, after a certain point, the empire changed, and no more colonies were established. In Gaul, they preferred the south, but more south/central and southeast than southwest. We also have to keep in mind that parts of southeast France don't show "colonies" because it was either very mountainous or was already part of "our" Gaul. Interestingly, there are more colonies in Gaul "proper" than in northern Italy. Luna is the only one in my area, although it was a large and very prosperous city.

That map is nothing compared to this interactive and digital one though. It's absolutely great. You can look for your own areas and see not only what was there, but the road network as well.
http://pelagios.org/maps/greco-roman/

It's good to take a look at Maciamo's map of the Cardial Neolithic in France too.

Thanks for the link. That digital and interactive map is great.

 

[Maciamo]

That map is nothing compared to this interactive and digital one though. It's absolutely great. You can look for your own areas and see not only what was there, but the road network as well.
http://pelagios.org/maps/greco-roman/

Wow, this map is amazing! It's difficult to gauge the potential genetic impact of the Romans based on the white dots (colonia, municipium, civitas, vicus, other settlements) because they were not necessarily found by the Romans. The forts and villas were, on the other hand, more likely inhabited by Romans from the Latium (at least during the Republic and early Empire for the forts). Roman villas were country houses built for the Roman upper classes, and therefore most likely citizens from Rome itself.

I wonder if they left out the villas in Italy as there is hardly any of them, except in Sardinia. Does anyone know if that is because upper-class Roman citizens were granted land in conquered territories mainly outside Italy?

Parts of Gaul have a very high density of Roman villas. That's especially true in Picardy, southern Belgium, Luxembourg and west Rhineland (Moselle valley), and northern Switzerland, namely around Samarobriva Ambianorum (Amiens), Augusta Treverorum (Trier), Coriovallum (Heerlen/Maastricht), Atuatuca (Tongeren), the Condroz region of Wallonia (between Huy, Namur, Dinant and Ciney) and between Basel and Zürich. The Rhine itself is lined up with colonies and forts.

In most of France the density of villas is much lower, except around Caesarodunum (Tours), Burdigala (Bordeaux), Elimberrum (Auch), Albiga (Albi), and Augustonemetum (Clermont-Ferrand). The main Roman colonies were established along the southern coast of France and the Rhône valley, but the region has few villas. Northwest France (Brittany, Normandy, Poitou) has the least Roman settlements.

Southern England also had lots of villas, especially the central to western part, which resembles a lot the Condroz region of Wallonia (green rolling hills), for example around Lindinis (Ilchester, Somerset), Venta Belgarum (Winchester, Hampshire), Noviomagus Reginorum (Chichester, West Sussex), Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester, Hampshire) Korinion (Cirencester, Gloucestershire).

Pannonia and the Balkans have lots of forts but no villas. The East Mediterranean have lots of cities, but also no villas. North Africa has mostly cities, but a few cluster of villas can be found in northern Tunisia and the adjacent part of Algeria and around Lixus at the northern tip of Morocco, but hardly anywhere else.

In terms of number or density of Roman settlements the provinces of Germania inferior and Germania superior beat all other parts of Gaul and maybe any other part of the empire outside Italy except the region around Hampshire in England. In Spain the region with the most villas and highest density of Roman settlements is around Italica and Hispalis (Seville).

Galicia and northern Portugal have a lot of brown dots. The legend doesn't say what brown means. Is that non-Roman cities?

 

[Angela]

Wow, this map is amazing! It's difficult to gauge the potential genetic impact of the Romans based on the white dots (colonia, municipium, civitas, vicus, other settlements) because they were not necessarily found by the Romans. The forts and villas were, on the other hand, more likely inhabited by Romans from the Latium (at least during the Republic and early Empire for the forts). Roman villas were country houses built for the Roman upper classes, and therefore most likely citizens from Rome itself.

I wonder if they left out the villas in Italy as there is hardly any of them, except in Sardinia. Does anyone know if that is because upper-class Roman citizens were granted land in conquered territories mainly outside Italy?

Parts of Gaul have a very high density of Roman villas. That's especially true in Picardy, southern Belgium, Luxembourg and west Rhineland (Moselle valley), and northern Switzerland, namely around Samarobriva Ambianorum (Amiens), Augusta Treverorum (Trier), Coriovallum (Heerlen/Maastricht), Atuatuca (Tongeren), the Condroz region of Wallonia (between Huy, Namur, Dinant and Ciney) and between Basel and Zürich. The Rhine itself is lined up with colonies and forts.

In most of France the density of villas is much lower, except around Caesarodunum (Tours), Burdigala (Bordeaux), Elimberrum (Auch), Albiga (Albi), and Augustonemetum (Clermont-Ferrand). The main Roman colonies were established along the southern coast of France and the Rhône valley, but the region has few villas. Northwest France (Brittany, Normandy, Poitou) has the least Roman settlements.

Southern England also had lots of villas, especially the central to western part, which resembles a lot the Condroz region of Wallonia (green rolling hills), for example around Lindinis (Ilchester, Somerset), Venta Belgarum (Winchester, Hampshire), Noviomagus Reginorum (Chichester, West Sussex), Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester, Hampshire) Korinion (Cirencester, Gloucestershire).

Pannonia and the Balkans have lots of forts but no villas. The East Mediterranean have lots of cities, but also no villas. North Africa has mostly cities, but a few cluster of villas can be found in northern Tunisia and the adjacent part of Algeria and around Lixus at the northern tip of Morocco, but hardly anywhere else.

In terms of number or density of Roman settlements the provinces of Germania inferior and Germania superior beat all other parts of Gaul and maybe any other part of the empire outside Italy except the region around Hampshire in England. In Spain the region with the most villas and highest density of Roman settlements is around Italica and Hispalis (Seville).

Galicia and northern Portugal have a lot of brown dots. The legend doesn't say what brown means. Is that non-Roman cities?

That's a puzzle, because the only brown in the legend is for elevation.

There are a few villas in my area, but mostly stations, mines, etc. The actual settlements are few in number. They had bad memories of the Ligures, perhaps. I don't know what the black circle at Filattiera means, either. That's my mother's area.

[/IMG]

 

[Angela]

My father's Apennine area was probably mostly settled by people from Piacenza, Parma etc., since the access is easier.

[/IMG]

In both cases these are the territories of the Celt-Ligurians, with Celtic tribes (undoubtedly mixed with locals as well), to the north. I also think south of the Apennines, in my mother's area, there was influence later on from the inhabitants of Luni. Progressive attacks by sea and land, including by Vikings who thought it was Rome, meant that finally all of the inhabitants, under their Bishop, moved inland toward Sarzana and further north even to Caprigliola.

Ligures:

[/IMG]

So, later after layer: Neolithic, Ligures, "Etruscans", whoever they were, Romans, Celts, some Lombards. It's a similar story all over Europe; just the proportions change.

 

[Sile]

DNA Land may appear to make more sense, but from the various DNA Land results I saw they tend to inflate the percentages of Sardinian, Finnish, North Slavic, Balkans and Ashkenazi. I compared Belgian family members with DNA Land and got completely different results. For example one had 13% of Balkans but another only 1%. One had 9% of Mediterranean island and another 0%. One person got 2% of Ashkenazi ancestry which never showed up with any other calculator. Only the Northwest European was stable at 65%. So I have my doubts about DNA Land's reliability. What's more DNA Land lacks a category for Italian ancestry (well, so does FTDNA, but not 23andMe or Living DNA).

True
But their relative matching system is very high in accuracy........I have found 4 out of 5 matches which confirm with my line ( not talking about close relatives)

 

[Sile]

Wow, this map is amazing! It's difficult to gauge the potential genetic impact of the Romans based on the white dots (colonia, municipium, civitas, vicus, other settlements) because they were not necessarily found by the Romans. The forts and villas were, on the other hand, more likely inhabited by Romans from the Latium (at least during the Republic and early Empire for the forts). Roman villas were country houses built for the Roman upper classes, and therefore most likely citizens from Rome itself.
I wonder if they left out the villas in Italy as there is hardly any of them, except in Sardinia. Does anyone know if that is because upper-class Roman citizens were granted land in conquered territories mainly outside Italy?
Parts of Gaul have a very high density of Roman villas. That's especially true in Picardy, southern Belgium, Luxembourg and west Rhineland (Moselle valley), and northern Switzerland, namely around Samarobriva Ambianorum (Amiens), Augusta Treverorum (Trier), Coriovallum (Heerlen/Maastricht), Atuatuca (Tongeren), the Condroz region of Wallonia (between Huy, Namur, Dinant and Ciney) and between Basel and Zürich. The Rhine itself is lined up with colonies and forts.
In most of France the density of villas is much lower, except around Caesarodunum (Tours), Burdigala (Bordeaux), Elimberrum (Auch), Albiga (Albi), and Augustonemetum (Clermont-Ferrand). The main Roman colonies were established along the southern coast of France and the Rhône valley, but the region has few villas. Northwest France (Brittany, Normandy, Poitou) has the least Roman settlements.
Southern England also had lots of villas, especially the central to western part, which resembles a lot the Condroz region of Wallonia (green rolling hills), for example around Lindinis (Ilchester, Somerset), Venta Belgarum (Winchester, Hampshire), Noviomagus Reginorum (Chichester, West Sussex), Calleva Atrebatum (Silchester, Hampshire) Korinion (Cirencester, Gloucestershire).
Pannonia and the Balkans have lots of forts but no villas. The East Mediterranean have lots of cities, but also no villas. North Africa has mostly cities, but a few cluster of villas can be found in northern Tunisia and the adjacent part of Algeria and around Lixus at the northern tip of Morocco, but hardly anywhere else.
In terms of number or density of Roman settlements the provinces of Germania inferior and Germania superior beat all other parts of Gaul and maybe any other part of the empire outside Italy except the region around Hampshire in England. In Spain the region with the most villas and highest density of Roman settlements is around Italica and Hispalis (Seville).
Galicia and northern Portugal have a lot of brown dots. The legend doesn't say what brown means. Is that non-Roman cities?

the interesting town of Cambodunum ( kempten )
Kempten is the largest town of Allgäu, in Swabia, Bavaria, Germany.
The area was possibly settled originally by Celts, but was later taken over by the Romans, who called the town Cambodunum. Kempten is the oldest urban settlement (town) in Germany.[2]
is still an issue if it was gallic-celt or Illyrian ( via Liburnians ) are the vindelici
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vindelici
we already know that Augusta Vindelicorum was fabricated by Roman legions from nothing ..............the Romans always stated Rhaetia with Vindelici are being one area
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augsburg is Augusta Vindelicorum ("Augusta of the Vindelici").

 

[Sile]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gallia_Cisalpina-fr.svg
.
the map above reflects the time between 550 and 500 BC ...........unsure what relevance it represents except that
all celts south of the cenomanni ( modern Verona area ) where butchered by the Romans by 100BC.
.
The Camuni are part of the indigenous Euganei tribes of modern Veneto and Friuli.
.
the Carnes ( carni ) are an illyrian tribe that became celtic in tongue and in the early iron age and eventually moved into Friuli ..............some say modern Furlani are a ancient mix of Euganei and Carni peoples.
.
The venetes ( Venetic ) are in majority the Indigenous Euganei people or as Cato states part of the 34 towns of the Euganei

 

[suebiking]

Well, I just saw Maciamo's doubt ragarding the brown dots. In fact I was curious because he said there was a great concentration in the are I was born (North Portugal) so I checked out the map and based on my extensive knowledge I can say with a big degree of certainty that the brown dots represent Celtic or Pre-Roman settlements. Most of those settlements were gradually abandoned with the romanization of the territories, since the Pax Romana permited those tribes that lived in the mountains to descend to the river valleys.

Also, you should check one of those brown dots in particular because the settlement was huge and on the top of a mountain with very good view to the valley above, truly a marbel to behold.

 

[Alcuin]

Can't you SEE the graphs you post ? The PCA areas hardly even overlap...
I'm Southern France myself. We've always been ; it runs in the family. My results :
FTDNA : British Isles 69% Iberia 5%
DNA Land : NW Europe 45% SW Europe 21%
It's no surprise that two contiguous countries should plot next to each other. But by your standards, the whole of western Europe is pretty much genetically identical!

Forgive me for asking, but are you sure you're legitimate?

 

[Angela]

Forgive me for asking, but are you sure you're legitimate?

I think the proper question is, are you? On another thread you called someone "reptilian". Consider this an official warning. An infraction will be issued for each and every insult of another member. Are we clear?

 

[hrvclv]

Forgive me for asking, but are you sure you're legitimate?

Don't you worry about that. I came across an old lady in a graveyard recently. She called me by my dad's first name, so sure was she that I was him. Upon which I explained he was the guy I'd come here to visit. One single look at my dad and me was enough to dispel any doubt. And my mum is a saint and always has been. I wish we'd meet some time: you could try and repeat your question face to face.

 

[Angela]

Don't you worry about that. I came across an old lady in a graveyard recently. She called me by my dad's first name, so sure was she that I was him. Upon which I explained he was the guy I'd come here to visit. One single look at my dad and me was enough to dispel any doubt. And my mum is a saint and always has been. I wish we'd meet some time: you could try and repeat your question face to face.

Good for you.

To be honest, I thought he was talking about some bizarre allegation that you have no training in these matters, but you're probably right and it was an even worse and more vulgar insult. I should have given him an infraction initially. It will be rectified immediately.

What is wrong with some people?