Gallic appearance

[Aryaman2]

no, they wouldn't, the french are mostly franks, or other gemanic amalgamations, as comerus said, and probably bear little resemblance to the guals. I think the Welsh and irish might be the closest we have to an old celtic type ethnicity, especially since many of the guals migrated to ireland in the 1st c. B.C., and settled entire portions of it. It seems to be borne out by the fact that the coin looked almost identical to members of my family, primarily welsh, and irish, with a very small portion of german and cornish as well.

Again, Im sure not all gauls looked alike at all, there would be some in the north looking germanic, and probably some in the southern part with some italic, or different bits and pieces.

Genetic research has shown there is an haplogroup, HG1, present 99% in original Western Irish population, that is considered to be predominant in prehistoric Western Europe. Today it is just about 60% in France, so modern French doesn´t exactly descend from ancient Gauls, not completely at least.
On the appearence of Gauls in classic writers, some points could be made
1) According to Kristian Kristiansen anthropometric studies show Gallic upper class (noblemen and their retainers) to be 5-10cms taller than average Gallic population
2) Add to that taller warriors were usually placed in the first rank, and you get a rather impresive line of battle of tall barbarians
3) Even if only a small part of Gallic warriors were blonde, they were probably noticed and remarked as characteristic, id est, different from average roman soldier. The spicatum hair also could have helped to get the impression.

[Johnny Shumate]

Aryaman2,
Would the other 40% be a mix of Frankish, Visigothic and maybe Roman(Italic) blood..?
Thanks,
Johnny

[TFLAVIUSAMBIORIX]

so me being irish I assume would have the 99% HG?? I have a little welsh as well, were any studies done on them?

all this genetic stuff is a big mystery to me.

I did read all the ancient sources though, I am a voracious reader of latin, but most of those may not be reliable.

[Johnny Shumate]

Also, it seems this prehistoric group may be the race before the Celtic invasion...
Any thoughts..?
Johnny

[S SEVERUS]

Although several different groups of Northmen came to Gaul at this time, the most successful and influential were the Salian Franks. Gaul was also partially invaded by Attila the Hun, but the Scourge of God, as he styled himself, made it no farther than Orleans and was pushed back in 451 by an army composed of Goths, Franks, Burgundians and Gauls. The Franks, under Clovis, served as a military elite as much as a governing class. One area the Franks made little attempt to subdue was Armorica, also called Brittany, which was a Celtic stronghold that had gained many ÈmigrÈs when the British Celts fled the Saxon invasions. Even today, the Celtic langauge Breton is spoken there, alongside the national language, French.

Though the Franks were the conquerors, they slowly became Romanized by the Gauls, even adopting the language of the people they ruled. Although the areas of France and Germany were ruled by a common king for close to 500 years (from the Merovingian Dynasty in the fifth century through the Carolingian Dynasty, which ended in the late tenth century, Germany and France were united under a common ruler, if not in fact in one imperial state), remarkably, for the most part, the languages remained distinct. Even the shifting political borders between 20th century France and Germany seem to have had little effect on linguistic borders. Among the inhabitants of the much disputed Alsace-Lorraine area, traditional German speakers continue to speak German and French speakers continue to speak French, regardless of which nation officially claims sovereignty. The Frankish influence in the Middle Ages and, to some degree, the more recent effects of shifting political borders, have ultimately contributed approximately 400 Germanic words to the French language.

http://colfa.utsa.edu/drinka/pie/lang_french.htm

So you could assume that the french are the descendants of the romanized gauls with a bit of Frankish blood Burgundian blood, ...

[Aryaman2]

Aryaman2,
Would the other 40% be a mix of Frankish, Visigothic and maybe Roman(Italic) blood..?
Thanks,
Johnny

Genetic markers can´t really distinguish historical populations. All that can be said is that the genetic marker R1b (called before HG1) according to latest studies would make almost 100% of French Paleolithic population (exceptions the "Basque" genetic marker EU18, and probably some degree of the "Central European I" in the borders with Germany and Belgium. Today France has 60% of R1b, 20%of I, 10% of J Eastern Mediterranen marker and E3b North African marker nad 10% of R1a eastern European marker. Some of the latest could be Neolithic, or maybe Roman colonization. I would bet on this last one, as the North African marker is also significantly present in England

[tlclark]

Speaking as a person of Scandanavian, Irish/Scottish Celtic and French heritage I have been reading this thread with great interest.

I would love to have some Italian/Greek/E. Mediterranean heritage, but alas...no.

(It struck me that I look more like the Gauls than I do like the Romans, so maybe I should be a barbarian re-enactor!)

I was wondering if we could move the conversation away from genetics and ethnicity (which is largely cultural constructed in many cases) to culture.

What cultural features would have made Gauls stand out from the Romans? For example, I know about the differences in dress, etc., but what about grooming, bearing etc.

For example, S. Italians use gestures more indicative of Greeks than other Italians.

Can we say anything about how their culture affected their appearance?

This is off-the-wall but I'd appreciate any feedback.

Travis

[Artorius1960]

no, they wouldn't, the french are mostly franks, or other gemanic amalgamations

I've wondered about how much the Franks and other Germanic peoples affected the population in Gaul. I tend to think of the Frankish domination of Gaul much like the Norman domination of England. The English remained English in language, culture, and race. In time, the Normans became less Norman and more English because there were so few of them in relation to the population of pre-Conquest Britain.

The Angles, Saxons, Jutes (and whoever else came that way) came on slowly and surely and in ever-increasing numbers and eventually pushed the Britons into the fringes like Wales/Cymru, Cornwall, and Strathclyde. The culture, language, race of the island became Germanic.

I don't think the Franks came into Gaul in sufficiently large numbers to dominate the pre-existing population. They also took control very rapidly and spread out across the lanscape thinly--much like the Normans in England. The language of modern France is not Germanic, as it would be if the Franks had culturally and racially dominated the land. Instead, they seem to have come as overlords of a population that was still very Romano-Gallic and eventually, like the Normans in England, melded into the general population.

[Artorius1960]

I was struck yesterday while reading Ammianus' account of the battle at Argentoratum that he describes the Alamanni et al. as being physically taller and stronger than the Romans.

I had assumed that by this time (AD 357) most Roman soldiers were recruited from the fringes of the empire and that many were of Germanic origin. However, the "wild" Germans were noted as being taller and stronger than the "civilized" ones. (Note that many other Roman soldiers would be of Gallic origin or Illyrian.)

It looks like an interesting case where a similar genetic history bifurcates at some point leading to notable differences in appearance. Diet may have a lot to do with it because it seems like it has been true in a lot of commentary that barbarians are often seen as physically larger than civilized people. Caesar and Tacitus both commented on how the Germans eat only meat, which is probably why they loom as big a Texans in ancient accounts.

[Robert Vermaat]

I would not make too much of it. Ammianus used much 'archaizing' language, going back on names (even military units! Odd for a soldier) and poetic concepts. One of these was that Germanics were always taller, wilder and scarier. It's something you see with ancient authors. It's like eastern armies always having elephants who are always scary and smelly, but apart from that the authors really don't know what they look like for real.

But consider that the Roman forces had by the late 4th c. been swelled with many Germanic volunteers and even Germanic Roman citizens. While, on the other hand, Germanic armies had become much more like Roman armies.
So why would the 'wild' Germanics be taller than the 'civilized' ones? Because it fits the poet, that's why. It would be prepostrous to even assume that Germanics shrunk upon becoming civilized.. D

[Artorius1960]

It's like eastern armies always having elephants who are always scary and smelly

That's funny. I was just quoting Ammianus to that effect on another forum. I think every mention he makes of elephants encountered during Julian's campaign in Persia are accompanied by descriptions of them as huge, horrible, and dreadful--but then, they probably were.

[Robert Vermaat]

but then, they probably were.

No doubt. But it's a fact that every commentator makes that same statement, ad nauseam, having been there or not. Philip rance wrote a good article about the reality behind comments about elephants in battles: Rance, Philip (2003): Elephants in Warfare in Late Antiquity, in: Acta Ant. Hung. 43, pp. 355-84.

Yes, I think it's typical for Ammianus to make such comments about strange peoples and places. I think it is a bit hurting for his reputation as a very good source. His use of archaic language sometimes makes a bit of a poet of him, trying to please his own readers instead of us, distant descendants hungering for details!

[Johnny Shumate]

Aryaman2,
Would the other 40% be a mix of Frankish, Visigothic and maybe Roman(Italic) blood..?
Thanks,
Johnny

Genetic markers can´t really distinguish historical populations. All that can be said is that the genetic marker R1b (called before HG1) according to latest studies would make almost 100% of French Paleolithic population (exceptions the "Basque" genetic marker EU18, and probably some degree of the "Central European I" in the borders with Germany and Belgium. Today France has 60% of R1b, 20%of I, 10% of J Eastern Mediterranen marker and E3b North African marker nad 10% of R1a eastern European marker. Some of the latest could be Neolithic, or maybe Roman colonization. I would bet on this last one, as the North African marker is also significantly present in England

Who would these Eastern Europoeans be? North Africans?
Johnny

[Aryaman2]

no, they wouldn't, the french are mostly franks, or other gemanic amalgamations

I've wondered about how much the Franks and other Germanic peoples affected the population in Gaul. I tend to think of the Frankish domination of Gaul much like the Norman domination of England. The English remained English in language, culture, and race. In time, the Normans became less Norman and more English because there were so few of them in relation to the population of pre-Conquest Britain.

The Angles, Saxons, Jutes (and whoever else came that way) came on slowly and surely and in ever-increasing numbers and eventually pushed the Britons into the fringes like Wales/Cymru, Cornwall, and Strathclyde. The culture, language, race of the island became Germanic.

I don't think the Franks came into Gaul in sufficiently large numbers to dominate the pre-existing population. They also took control very rapidly and spread out across the lanscape thinly--much like the Normans in England. The language of modern France is not Germanic, as it would be if the Franks had culturally and racially dominated the land. Instead, they seem to have come as overlords of a population that was still very Romano-Gallic and eventually, like the Normans in England, melded into the general population.

Genetic research doesn´t support the idea of a "Germanic" race dominating England and pushing aside Britons, England genetic pool is remarkably similar to that of France and quite different from Germany or Norway. There is a certainly a lower presence of R1b haplogroup and a higher of I haplogroup than in Wales or Ireland, but still it is above 50%, so the original population of England since the last ice age is still the main contributor to its genetic pool.

[Aryaman2]

So why would the 'wild' Germanics be taller than the 'civilized' ones? Because it fits the poet, that's why. It would be prepostrous to even assume that Germanics shrunk upon becoming civilized.. D

There is an anthropometric study in ancient Raetia that shows just that, average size of people diminishing after Roman conquest. That is not to deny the particular example given by Ammianus being a poetic convention, I am myself convinced that is the case in many ancient sources, but it seems that Roman social system being more unequal than "barbarian" system actually have the effect of lowering the average size of population