Geographic and genetic distance

In the previous post, we saw how Cavalli Sforza was criticizing the concept of “racial purity”. He then spends some time in his book to clarify the concept of “genetic distance” between populations. C. Sforza describes the “genetic distance” as a difference between percentage frequencies of the form of a gene.

In order to contrast the populations, there is a need to synthetize a vast amount of genetic information, in other words it is essential to average the distance between two populations over many genes if one wants reproducible conclusions. But, it is worth noting that most of the formulas currently used to calculate genetic distances provide very similar results overall.

The main conclusion of the various studies is that the genetic distance between two populations generally increases in direct correlation with geographic distance separating them. This derives from the observation that while most spouses are selected from within their own villages or town, or part of a city, a small proportion is chosen from neighbouring ones.

But, while the increase of genetic distance with geographic distance may be linear at first, over a greater geographic distance, the increase in genetic distance slows sharply. The two characteristics of the curve – the rate (or slope) of the initial increase, and the maximal value reached by the genetic distance over a great geographic distance- are different in every continent. However, studies show that they are slightest in Europe, which is the most homogeneous continent. The maximal genetic distance within Europe is three times smaller the on the least homogeneous continents. Despite political fragmentation, migration within Europe has been sufficient to create a greater genetic homogeneity than elsewhere.

What is a race, then?

A race is a group of individuals that could be recognized as biologically different from others. To be scientifically “recognized” the differences between a population that we would like to call a race and neighbouring populations must be statistically significant according to some defined criteria.

C. Sforza’s experiments have shown that even neighbouring populations (villages or towns) can often be quite different from each other. But, classifying the world’s population into several thousands or a million different “races” would of course be completely impractical. So, what level of genetic divergence would be necessary to determine boundaries for the definition of a “racial difference”? Because genetic divergence increases in a continuous manner, it seems obvious that any definition or threshold would be completely arbitrary. C. Darwin had understood that geographic continuity would frustrate any attempt to classify human races. The US census is itself a proof of the theoretical difficulties of race classification, mixing ethnicity, history and language.

The observation has been made that almost any human group, from a village in the Pyrénées or the Alps to a Pygmy camp in Africa, displays almost the same average distance between individuals: any small village typically contains about the same amount of genetic variation as another village located on any other continent. Regardless of the type of genetic markers used (selected from a very wide range), the variation between two random individuals within any one population is 85% as large as that between two individuals randomly selected from the world’s population.

It seems therefore wise to C. Sforza to abandon any attempt at racial classification along the traditional lines. But he then points out that from a genetic point of view, the most meaningful social group is the one in which one is likely to find a spouse. This social group has, for anthropologists an average or “ideal size” of more or less five hundred individuals. The geneticist looks for its part at groups of 5000 to 500.000 individuals. Within this group, people would have greater genetic similarity than two random individuals because they would share significantly more ancestry, even more if the group has been defined on the basis of endogamous behavior (tendency to marry within the group).

arrivée des huguenots français

arrivée des huguenots français, a photo by antoinebarbry on Flickr.

du nouveau sur les huguenots nordistes en Afrique du Sud!

Suite à la publication de mon article, Bernard Chovaux a fait des recherches dans le fonds notarial de Saint Omer sur Gérard HANSERET émigré en Afrique du Sud en 1701.
La synthèse de ses trouvailles sur
http://bchovaux.typepad.fr/blog/2011/07/migrants-de-saint-omer.html

Les colons flamands en Afrique du Sud ou le fantasme du généalogiste

Cet article est paru pour la première fois dans « Nord Généalogie» numéro 170 de septembre 2001. Il a été revu, modifié et complété en mai 2011 pour le site web du

Vlaamse Vereniging voor Familiekunde (principale association généalogique flamande de Belgique)

     Lors d'un séjour de deux ans en Afrique du Sud, je m'étais intéressé aux flux migratoires de la deuxième moitié du XVIIe siècle à destination de ce pays et en provenance de la Flandre et de l'Artois.

I)  LE FANTASME DU GENEALOGISTE

Lorsque l'on s'intéresse à ces migrations, on comprend rapidement que les recherches familiales en Afrique du Sud répondent à plusieurs fantasmes du généalogiste moyen.

L’introduction de l’ouvrage de référence de Christoffel COETZEE DE VILLIERS « Genealogies of old South African Families »[1] précise ainsi qu’il n’y « avait pas un autre pays au monde où puisse exister un ouvrage contenant la totalité des archives généalogiques des différentes familles composant le pays depuis sa fondation ». Remarquons qu’à cette occasion, l’auteur élimine d’un revers de main les plus de 35 millions (sur plus ou moins 43 millions) de Sud-Africains actuels qui descendent des populations noires originelles ou des migrants indiens… Néanmoins, l’idée de base est là : il est tout à fait fascinant de se pencher sur les généalogies de familles de colons blancs car l’on atteint alors au rêve de tout généalogiste  :

1)       Remonter jusqu’à l’ancêtre originel, fondateur de la « dynastie »

2)       Relier entre eux les porteurs d’un même nom (sauf dans quelques rares cas où plusieurs colons portant le même nom mais sans lien de sang, se sont installés à la même époque en Afrique du Sud).

En résumé, cela veut dire que vous pouvez être assuré d’une parenté avec la personne que vous rencontrez et qui porte le même nom que vous ! Notons la dimension religieuse avec ce raccordement jusqu’à un mythique couple « Adam et Eve » à l’origine du monde. Il n’est pas innocent que la généalogie soit particulièrement développée au sein de la communauté dite « afrikaner[2] » dont la piété et le sentiment d’être le « peuple élu » constituaient les piliers de leur identité.

II)  LES HUGUENOTS

Les mariages entre les diverses communautés issues d'Europe occidentale furent quasiment la norme lors des deux ou trois premières générations installées dans la région du Cap. Les autorités de la colonie s'étaient rendus compte des menaces sur l’homogénéité de la communauté du fait de la diversité linguistique et ethnique des arrivants. Une politique d’éparpillement géographique des terres attribuées aux huguenots[3] avait ainsi limité les mariages entre membres de la communauté francophone, et la promotion active du néerlandais avait donné le coup de grâce à la pratique de la langue française en Afrique du Sud, malgré le désir des premiers colons de préserver leur identité. Comme l’ont très bien montré MM. Derreumaux et Delvinquier (dans "Nord Généalogie" numéro 167), les traces de la présence française en ces terres lointaines se retrouveront seulement dans les noms des fermes et vignobles de la région du Cap, en particulier dans la région de Franschhoek (la vallée française).

Les Sud-Africains attachent une grande importance au nom de famille. Sera considéré comme descendant de huguenot celui qui porte un nom français, alors que ce ne sera pas le cas de celui qui a vu ses branches huguenotes peupler sa généalogie maternelle. De la même manière, il est très fréquent de donner au premier fils le prénom de l’ancêtre originel huguenot.

III)  L’ORIGINE DES COLONS EUROPEENS

Quelle a été l’influence huguenote en termes démographiques ? Question difficile à laquelle on ne peut apporter de réponse définitive. La composition « ethnique » de la population afrikaner (on laissera ici de côté la partie de la population sud-africaine descendant de colons britanniques arrivés plus tardivement) est un perpétuel sujet de discorde. Pour les paragraphes qui suivent, je me suis appuyé sur l’ouvrage « Genealogies of old South African families » qui figure en bibliographie.

Le premier à se pencher sur la question des origines des colons fut G. Mc Call Theal qui déclara en 1897 que cent ans auparavant, en 1797 donc, les deux tiers des Afrikaners descendaient de Néerlandais, un sixième de Français et le reste d’Allemands et d’autres origines. Il reconnaissait cependant que ce n’était pas l’origine qui importait mais plutôt la date d’arrivée du premier colon de la famille et la fertilité des mariages. En 1902, Colenbrander fit de nouvelles recherches et estima qu’en 1806, les Afrikaners (ou Afrikanders) étaient pour 50 % d’origine néerlandaise, 27% d’origine allemande, 17% d’origine française et 5% d’autre origine. Il estima que la proportion des populations blanches des républiques Boers ne changea pas après cette date car jusqu’à la fin du XIXe siècle, les Boers (paysans d’origine néerlandaise) n’épousaient pas d’anglophones. Cependant, d’autres auteurs estimeront que les Boers étaient surtout d’origine allemande (sur les 1391 colons arrivés au Cap avant 1806, 745 étaient d’origine allemande). Bosman publia une nouvelle étude en 1923 qui fait grosso modo encore foi : 53% de Néerlandais, 28% d’Allemands, 15% de Français et 4% d’autre origine.

IV) COLONS HOLLANDAIS, ALLEMANDS OU FLAMANDS?

Le problème principal de ces études statistiques sur l’origine des colons est un problème de dénomination. Le terme de « Néerlandais » ou « Hollandais » devrait, pour certains, être étendu à d’autres que ceux qui vivaient à l’intérieur des strictes frontières des Provinces Unies. Par exemple, la plupart des émigrants allemands parlaient le bas-allemand et n’étaient pas considérés comme étrangers par les Hollandais du XVIe, en effet, le territoire au sud-est de Cologne formait une unité culturelle avec les Provinces Unies. Même au XVIIe, la frontière politique, linguistique et culturelle était plus que mouvante (immigration continue de « pauvres » allemands vers les « riches » Pays Bas). Il fallut attendre longtemps pour que la division politique créée par le Traité de Westphalie en 1648 devint une division culturelle. C’est la conquête par la Prusse de ces territoires qui fit remplacer le bas-allemand par le haut-allemand. Avant cette date, de nombreux territoires aujourd’hui allemands avaient été aux mains des Pays Bas et en conséquence, de nombreux habitants de ces régions s’engageaient dans les Compagnies des Indes Orientale et Occidentale. Rappelons enfin que l’Allemagne en tant qu’unité politique n’existait pas à l’époque.

Les mêmes remarques peuvent être appliquées à la Flandre, néerlandaise culturellement et linguistiquement mais divisée politiquement. Cette fois-ci le problème de dénomination ne se pose pas avec les voisins néerlandais du nord mais avec les voisins français du sud. En 1943, Dom A. Smits publie « De betrekkingen tussen Vlaanderen en Zuid-Afrika » (« Les liens entre la Flandre et l’Afrique du Sud ») qui est aussi une étude de l’origine des émigrants « français » : 58 des 164 familles listées par C. Graham Botha comme étant d’ascendance huguenote venaient des Flandres françaises. L’auteur s’interroge sur le fait qu’ils aient pu quitter leur région en raison de la récente conquête de ces territoires par la France. J.E. Van Driesche précise dans son « Histoire de Tourcoing » que l’émigration s’est aussi faite en raison de l’effondrement de l’industrie du tissu car la Flandre se trouvait désormais coupée de ses acheteurs. M. Smits estime que leur rapide intégration aux colons hollandais serait due à la pratique de la langue flamande par ces colons « français ».

Ce débat sur les origines des colons n’est bien entendu pas clos et doit éviter plusieurs écueils dont celui de tomber dans l’argument émotionnel ou raciste. Un pur regard géographique n’est pas suffisant pour répondre à cette question car il faudrait étudier bien plus en détail d’autres documents pour déterminer l’appartenance à un groupe culturel. De même, la descendance en ligne masculine a seulement une signification juridique et sociale mais pas biologique puisqu’elle ne représente qu’une infime partie du tout.

V)  LISTE DES EMIGRANTS 

La première partie de la liste des émigrants nordistes et flamands est parue sous la plume de MM. Derreumaux et Delvinquier ("Nord Généalogie" numéro 167). La deuxième partie est le fruit de mon travail et complète la première avec les émigrants arrivés bien après la première vague de 1688-1690.

La première liste est basée sur l'ouvrage de Pieter COERTZEN "The huguenots of South Africa 1688-1988" Tafelberg. Le Cap. La deuxième liste est basée sur les livres cités en bibliographie.

PREMIERE PARTIE:

-       François BASTIAANS originaire d'Armentières et arrivé avant octobre 1686

-        Abraham BELUSET originaire de Calais, arrivé en 1688

-     Josse, Theunis et Francine BEVERNAGE, originaires de Courtrai et/ou Nederbrakel, arrivés vers 1700.     Francine avait épousé à Steenwerck Jacques MOUTON (voir plus bas)

-       Engelbert CAUCHETEUX originaire de Marck et/ou Calais, arrivé en 1690

-       Marie de GRAVE originaire de Fleurbaix, arrivée en 1683

-       Guillaume et Marie de HAAS, originaires de Lille, arrivés vers 1700

-    Nicolas DELANOY (x Marguerite de FRANCE) et leurs enfants Marie, Nicolas, Mathieu, Suzanne et François, tous originaires de Guines ou Calais, arrivés en 1688

-         Jacques DELPORTE (originaire de Lille) et son épouse Sarah VITU, arrivés en 1699

-     Louis de PERONNE, originaire de Nazareth (Oost Vlaanderen) arrivé en 1687 comme soldat de la Compagnie Néerlandaise des Indes Orientales

-      Hercule DESPREZ et son épouse Cécilia DATIS originaires de Courtrai, arrivés avec leurs enfants Elisabeth, Hercule, Marie Jeanne, François Jean, Jacquemine et Philippe en 1688

-         Philippe DROUIN originaire de Calais, arrivé en 1698

-     Pierre DUMONT, originaire de Calais, arrivé en 1696 et remarié à Cécilia DATIS veuve de Hercule  DUPREZ

-         Marie Catherine DURIER, originaire de Lille, arrivée en 1700

-         François et Guillaume DUTOIT originaires de Lille et arrivés en 1686

-         Anne GOUDALLE originaire de Guines ou Calais arrivée en 1688

-        Gérard HANSERET originaire de Saint Omer, arrivé en 1701 avec son épouse Gabrielle WAVRAND

-     Pierre LEFEBVRE et Marie de GRAVE originaires de Fleurbaix arrivés en 1683 avec sa soeur Barbe LEFEBVRE et son fils Guillaume LEFEBVRE

-        Jean MANIER originaire de Calais, arrivé vers 1689

-       Jacques MOUTON, originaire de Steenwerck, arrivé en 1699 avec 3 enfants issus de son premier mariage avec Catherine LHERMITTE: Marie, Madeleine et Marguerite

-       Daniel, Jacques et Jean NOURTIER, trois frères originaires de St Blaise près de Guines et arrivés en 1688 avec l'épouse de Daniel, Marie VITU, originaire de Guines ou Calais

-    Charles PREVOST et Marie LEFEBVRE originaires de Dombrie arrivés en 1688 avec leurs enfants Abraham, Anne, Elisabeth et Jacques

-      Jean ROGIER ou ROSIER originaire de Moortseele (Oost Vlaanderen) ou Courtrai, arrivé en 1699 comme soldat

DEUXIEME PARTIE:

-          Jean DE BUS (marié à Sarah JACOB) arrivé en 1688 serait né le 06/09/1670 à Guines de Jean DEBUS et Elisabeth DELEBECQUE

-          Sarah JACOB (marié à Jean DE BUS) serait née le 06/10/1677 (baptisée le 31/10/1677) à Guines  de Pierre et Suzanne DE VOS. Ce couple a eu comme autre enfants Suzanne (née à Calais) et Daniel (né à Vieille Eglise, près de Calais, en 1673)

-          Alexandre Bertinus DANEEL. Arrivé de Poperinge et marié en Afrique du Sud en 1800

-          Joost Pietersz et Burger Pietersz VAN DYK arrivés d’Ysenberg (Flandres) vers 1695

-          Guillaume HEEMS. Arrivé de Bruges en 1673

-          Pieter KEMP. Arrivé de Bruges en 1715

-          Maximilien DE HUVETTER. Arrivé de Bruges en 1719

-          Johannes François CLEENWERK. Arrivé de Bruges en 1787

-          Willem KOEKE de « Petegem près de Deynse » (Flandres) marié sur place en 1793

-          Pierre Joseph DE KOOPMAN de Cassel, marié en 1810

-          Pieter François LE CLUS de Gent (né le 27/02/1758, marié en 1786)

-          Frans MASSIN. Arrivé de Gent en 1778

-          Suzanne COSTEUX ( ou COCHETEUX) née à Marck de Esaias et Suzanne ALBERT

-          Jacques MOUTON de « Steenkerken  près de Lille » épouse Catherine LHERMITTE de « Steenkerk » puis en troisième mariage Francine DE BEVERNAGE de « Neerbrakel près d’Oudenaarde » (Flandre) voir première partie

-          Jan Frederik MULLER. Arrivé d’Ostende et marié sur place en 1807

-          Egidius Charles OLIVIER. Arrivé de Mechelen (Belg.). Marié sur place en 1795

-          Jacob Joseph PEROT. Arrivé de « Luik » (Belg.) en 1771

-          Marie Angèle VAN DER CRUYCE. Arrivée de Cassel en 1760 (née vers 1745)

-          Cosmos Joseph et  Pierre Jacques RADEMAN. Arrivés de Courtrai en 1767

-          Johannes Hendricus ROSELT . Arrivé de Mechelen (Belg.). marié sur place en 1788

-          Maria DE HAASE de Lille, fille de Guillaume et Marie Catherine DURIER (épouse Jean LEROUX, arrivé en 1690 de Normandie)

-          Philippe Joseph Léonard RYKHARD. Arrivé de Mechelen (Belg.) et marié sur place en 1790

-          Jacob TALJAARD. Arrivé de « Doornik » (Flandre) en 1749

-          Adam TAS né vers 1668 de Jean TAS, « commis des recherches » de « Ommerfort in Overryssel » (Saint Omer ?)

-          Marie Jeanne DES PREZ, qui épouse Jacques THERON en 1697, est aussi décrite comme venant de Béthune

-          Jean DUVAL de « Duinkerken » (Dunkerque ?) marié sur place en 1763

-          Pieter VISAGIE. Arrivé d’Anvers en 1657

-          Jean Baptiste DE VOS . Arrivé de « Severghem » (Flandre) et marié sur place en 1787

-          Pieter VAN DER WESTHUYZEN. Arrivé de Bruges en 1662

-          Jacomina CARTENIERS. D’Oudenaarde

-          Antoine ASSERON. Arrivé de Bruxelles et marié sur place en 1788

-          Louis Pierre AVENANT. Arrivé de Bruxelles et marié sur place en 1807

-          Jean François AWART. Arrivé de Bruxelles et marié sur place en 1819

BIBLIOGRAPHIE :

(la difficulté de diversifier ses sources vient de la publication de la majorité des documents en afrikaans. Je me suis donc appuyé sur les sources anglophones qui , pour certaines, figuraient dans des ouvrages publiés dans les deux langues)

C.C. DE VILLIERS. « Genealogies of old South African Families ». A.A. Balkema. Le Cap/Rotterdam. 1981. 2 volumes

J.A. HEESE et R.T.J. LOMBARD. « South African Genealogies » Pretoria. 1986. Tome A jusqu’à C

Manfred NATHAN. « The Hughenots in South Africa ». Le Cap. 1939

C. Graham BOTHA . « The French Refugees at the Cape » Le Cap. 1919

[1] voir bibliographie

[2] Les Afrikaners sont les colons principalement d'origine hollandaise (mais également française ou allemande) qui sont arrivés en Afrique du Sud dans la seconde moitié du XVIIe siècle. Le terme regroupe les locuteurs de la langue afrikaans.

[3] Protestants ayant quitté la France pour se rendre aux Pays Bas ou en Angleterre après la révocation entre 1660 et 1685 de l'édit de Nantes qui reconnaissait la liberté de culte, et la politique de conversion au catholicisme sous Louis XIV.

---

Interview with Christian Settipani

 

           

With his first publication in the mid 1980s, Christian Settipani made a sensational entry into the world of genealogy. His wide-ranging and learned works on the families of classical antiquity to the year one thousand (among them "Nos ancêtres de l’antiquité", "Les ancêtres de Charlemagne" and "La Préhistoire des Capétiens") have since become an essential reference for both experienced historians and the general public, and this far beyond the borders of France.

Hello Christian, first a question to satisfy my curiosity and that of many readers, how did you find yourself in the cauldron that is the genealogy of the "dark ages"?

Quite simply - I was given "The Iliad and the Odyssey" when I was young. I started developing the genealogies in it and, reconstructing from one relationship to another, I finally arrived at the "dark ages" ...

As the name implies, there is a real dearth of sources from the "dark ages" for an in depth and wide-ranging reconstruction of descents at this time. How do you overcome that?

This is not necessarily an obstacle. There are few sources but they do exist. When there are many sources they have to be sorted out, and that is a challenge in itself. But when there are only few sources, you learn very quickly to extract all the juice, every bit of information possible. It is the work of the historian.

A researcher studying these periods has to work more from chronicles written by actors or witnesses of the (his)story rather than from legal or commercial deeds, the way the traditional genealogist does. So, given that there are so few sources for earliest periods, how do you assess the reliability of a source?

Contrary to what you say, there are texts about daily life for these obscure periods - there are legal texts in inscriptions or on pieces of pottery. As for literary sources, it's true they are often written long after the events they describe, but again it is the job of the historian to sort out those sources which can be used from those that can't.  It takes a long time as it covers several centuries. You compare these sources with those already known about the period, not only genealogical but also those dealing with culture and society. That way you can differentiate between those that are reliable and those that are not.

To give you an example, it has taken ages to know if what Homer recounts in "The Iliad and the Odyssey" corresponds to what life was like during the Mycenaean period it was supposed to describe. On the whole it doesn't, but there is a little bit all the same. Another example from the "Iliad", it's a mythological tale filled with genealogies. Ever since 1800, it was thought to be meaningless. But today we're much more careful: it's been shown that the city of Troy existed, Hittite texts have been found that describe the tensions in the region at this time, with a king of Troy at the time called Alexander, as Alexander Paris in the "Iliad." There are things in the "Iliad" that can be retained even if all the heroes are not real people. The historian has to use all the texts at his disposal, including epic poems, and compare them with other sources to see if there's anything that can be used or not.

Is it possible to define a moment when a bunch of clues allows a conclusion to be drawn, or do you have to resign yourself to the limits of "personal conviction"? Should genealogy also involve looking for creative answers and theories?

Research is personal conviction! I read critics who say "it's not certain because there is not enough evidence". But the fact is, when that's all you do for years on end, when you deal with academic research, you end up with personal convictions, even if they can never take the place of proof. Nor is a personal conviction the same thing as precision, usually it's more about a family relationship rather than a precise “father-to-son” relationship.

Contrary to my reputation, in fact I see myself as a quite conservative genealogist: I respect what my predecessors have done and believe they have thought through the issues. I don't think up things that are totally hare-brained or totally innovative. But even so, it is still possible to make progress and go beyond what has been proven without dreaming up fanciful answers. We simply have to take into account all the possible sources available, and that hasn't always been done by people in the past. In particular we have to overcome the barriers created between certain periods or areas of research (medieval / classic, Gaul / Spain). We have to be able to read medieval sources as well as classical ones, to know the history of Spain as well as that of the Merovingians: that way we can cross frontiers without upsetting what has been done by one side or the other.

Do you think there are "qualities" that make a "good" genealogist? And does a genealogist dealing with the periods before the year 1000 use the same methods as the genealogist of parish registers and legal texts?

No, not qualities, it's a question of learning. Too often there are people who don't have the necessary background in history and think they know a lot about genealogy. However, if they take the trouble to learn, they can become good researchers. There are also dedicated historians who sometimes don't take the trouble to double check the genealogical elements in their work. This is not a problem of training or skills but rather a lack of interest in a discipline sometimes considered to be secondary. And yet genealogy plays a role in the construction of chronologies, in establishing certain facts about society. It should not be denigrated any more than any other aspect of history.

And to answer the second part of your question, no, the genealogist studying the years before the first millennium does not use the same methods because they don't use the same sources, and usually they don't even work with the same languages.

Your work involves the study of history and sociology as much as it does genealogy. You also work with several universities (including a department of the CNRS) and you participate regularly in history seminars. Does having a knowledge and understanding of history and sociology help the genealogist? And, on the other hand, what does genealogy contribute to historical and sociological research?

For me, the knowledge of history is completely indispensable: at the very least you need to know about the way people thought and facts about society in the genealogical period that's being studied! We can learn by taking courses, listening to teachers, reading books. That's what I did before I started writing my own books.

The first contribution genealogy makes to history is to fix the chronology. Early chronological texts about human beings are often genealogies. The time of an event was fixed by saying "that happened at the time of my father's father .. ". Genealogy was also used to legitimize the power of a social class claiming that power because it was inherited from the gods or from kingly ancestors. And then genealogy has an important role to help anthropologists understand social behaviour, because family ties are the primary social ties.

In the course of certain projects, genealogy has helped to trace the transmission of genetic diseases. Many people believe that genetics will also revolutionize genealogical research. What is your opinion? Will genetics one day help advance genealogical research?

As far as the relationship between genealogy and genetics is concerned, that is something else. As far as the dark ages are concerned, genealogy is a social fact more than a genetic link: a man was recognized by society as the son of another man. Anyway it would be very difficult to do genetic genealogy without the remains of the people involved. We could hope that social genealogy could cross with genetic genealogy, but that's just wishful thinking.

There was research conducted in Italy by the CNRS on the transmission of a disease in a village where the parish registers were well kept and where the physical manifestations of the disease were reported, and this research showed that the children who inherited the disease were born to parents neither of whom had it! And that was a very conservative village in Christian Italy ...

Advances in genealogy through genetics are possible but the problem is to find human remains in order to have something to work on. A recent example has just shown a possible role for genetics in genealogy: Tutankhamen's relations are now known after being the subject of heated debate for 150 years. Now, thanks to genetics, we have a conclusion.

There has also been research on the populations of northern Italy to establish the continuity of settlement from modern back to ancient times. There is evidence of the genetic discontinuity of these populations, contrary to the popular belief that the people are rooted in the area.

But when it comes to research on individuals to find out if they descend from such and such a king or such and such a pharaoh, then I am much more doubtful about what genetics can contribute. Even if DNA proved that someone is a descendant of Ramses there is still a gap of 60 generations ... At that level genetics can only flatter personal vanity.

The basis of your work in recent years is the "continuity of the elites" throughout the various ages. Can you tell us more about the prevalence or otherwise of this continuity in the part of France north of Paris, the geographic area that interests us most? Was there a mix between the elites of Roman-Gaul and the Frankish elites, or did the Franks simply replace their predecessors? Are the Carolingian elites mainly of "Germanic" origin? More generally, in cultural terms we know what we owe to our Greco-Roman past, but have they "left us anything genealogically"?

When we think of the invasions we learned about at school, we see hordes of barbarians sweeping across Gaul, but it wasn't like that. Only a few thousand people arrived and they did not replace the local population. Essentially, the population remained unchanged. Indeed, the very concept of "Germanic invasion" is now being challenged by historians, but that's another discussion ...

For the dark ages, the elites are the only social group we can really work on, and that is why they interest me. Gallo-Roman elites were not at all marginalised: a famous example is the family of Saint Remi of Reims, a Roman family.  Many of its members were high-ranking civil and military officers for several generations.

The Carolingian elites are the result of the mixing of aristocratic families of various origins. These people saw themselves as members of a higher social class and, apart from the question of which law should apply to the legal transfer of property, their origins didn't matter.

Of course, for obvious political reasons, Clovis' principal military leaders were predominantly Germanic. But the conquered populations had important positions in the civil and ecclesiastical hierarchy: in terms of power, they were the ones who controlled the cities, so they weren't unimportant.

This interview will be published in the leading genealogical journal in northern France. It's the region that is of most interest to its readers. So I have to ask you some questions about it! To begin with, is it reasonable to assume that because of a geographical proximity to centres of Frankish (Tournai) or Carolingian (Saint Denis, Aachen) power, a genealogist whose origins are in the north and in Belgium would be statistically more likely to descend from Charlemagne?

No, I don't think so. Charlemagne's genes were quickly spread everywhere (the north of Italy for example), and also the Carolingians travelled a lot. So I do not think that coming from the north of France means there is a higher probability of a descent from Charlemagne.

On the other hand, we're lucky enough to have a lot of information on the county families of today's northern France and Belgium. Vanderkindere[1], for example, seeks to list and classify these families. They are well documented thanks to charters, chronicles and historical accounts. And a good deal of medieval genealogical literature begins in the north of Gaul. It begins with the royal families, then ducal, but soon also addresses families of lesser importance. Here we have exceptionally rich documents that other regions don't always have.

Several French historians (such as Feuchère) or Belgian (such as Warlop) have tried to combine sociology and genealogy for the families of Flanders (Belgian and French) and Artois. Warlop in particular has shown that in the north, even more than in southern France, a person was noble because he was born noble, and that nobles in 11^th and 12^th century Flanders were not "new men" but the descendants of the illustrious viri illustres (great families) from the Carolingian period. Has your research been able to confirm or deny this theory? Is this peculiar to northern France or not?

We have to be very careful because it is above all an historiographical debate. Every now and then it becomes fashionable to say there is no continuity, that the nobility is a new one (such was the thesis of Marc Bloch); then along comes a new generation of historians that says the opposite: “not at all, the high nobility came directly from the line of the Carolingians". Today it's said to be a little bit of both. Mostly, the aristocrats of the classical Middle Ages were related to older families with a few openings here and there. When we see the arrival of new families, it is often the younger sons of older families. But, at the same time we do have documented examples of completely new families, the best example being the family of the Counts of Anjou, who end up on the throne of England. It is almost certain that their origins were relatively modest, that is, they were from the lower ranks of the aristocracy.

And then, we must also remember that there was a very fluid line during the Middle Ages in northern Gaul between rich peasants and poor aristocrats. Being a free man was already some form of nobility in relation to the vast majority of the population that was of servile origin. If we agree on the meaning of nobility, there is, in fact, a lot of continuity. However, these days we tend to use the term "elite" rather than "nobility".

Can you briefly remind us about the key sources that would be of most interest to a northern genealogist working on the most distant centuries?

Well, the North is no different from other regions of France. There are two basic types of sources:

-         Literature, which is not necessarily works of history (chronicles, the lives of saints, poetry);

-         Diplomatic (charters with legal texts dealing with the transmission or sale of property or of an office).

A lot of these charters were destroyed, but we have some copies that were preserved in the monasteries, mainly charters chosen by the monks (those that would have been used to justify, several years after their transmission, ownership of the most valuable among the properties received). These charters were then linked to the cartularies where they were recopied. But some details were removed and these would have been of great interest to us: genealogical details or lists of witnesses giving their relationship to the donor, but the monks were not interested. Despite this, cartularies are our primary source of information for medieval genealogy. But when we look at what we have and what we know there used to be (as each deed gave rise to a document) we can see how much has been lost ... Another major source which has unfortunately almost completely disappeared is Wills: only about fifteen still exist.

There are many literary sources for the North (the Giselbert of Mons, Lambert of Wattrelos, Lambert of Ardres chronicles) that are full of genealogical information. This is a feature of the North not really matched by other regions.

Can we still expect to find unpublished documents that will move research forward? Can archaeology help?

It's always possible that new genealogical documents will be found, but let's not kid ourselves; it will be very rare and is not really likely. New manuscripts are always being found, but they don't have historical or genealogical information, they are usually ecclesiastical documents such as extracts from the Bible or the lives of saints that are already known. There is little chance of finding any more genealogical chronicles especially since there were not very many of them, but still it happens from time to time.

Recently, and quite incredibly, the original charter of William of Gellone (Saint William), one of Charlemagne's closest relatives, was found. All his relatives are listed in it. We only knew of this charter through cartularies and its authenticity was doubtful but then, ten years ago, the original was found. We now know for certain the complete genealogy of Saint William and his family. Another example: a fire in a monastery in Sinai led to the discovery of a secret room with stunning documents about the medieval history of Georgia. And we are still finding inscriptions of Roman senators.

But thanks to computers and the Internet, genealogy can now progress with the examination and comparison of documents from other disciplines as well as those from other genealogical geographical areas and chronological periods. We can bring together texts that we had not thought of bringing together, and it brings about exchanges between researchers. The internet provides researchers with documents that until now they could only have seen by visiting faraway libraries. So we can still hope to move forward in the genealogy of the dark ages as well as for the centuries that are not so dark!

It's nearly Christmas (note: this interview was conducted Dec. 23, 2010). If there was a document that Father Christmas could bring you to make some progress on the study of a family, which one would you choose? What is your dearest genealogical wish?

Even if you asked me what my ten most cherished wishes were, I'd still find it hard to choose!

Parts of some of the most critical genealogies are sometimes broken for the lack of a word or a name. With just a few more centimetres on an inscription, we could solve mysteries that have occupied researchers for decades.

But if I had to pick one, ever since I wrote my first book on the ancestors of Charlemagne I've wanted to be certain of the name of Arnulf's father (Ed. Charlemagne's great-great-great paternal grandfather). It would be so satisfying to know who he was even if it were to contradict everything I have written on the issue, because the truth of any kind is what is most satisfying!

Last question, you are putting the finishing touches to the eagerly awaited second volume of "la Préhistoire des Capétiens". Can you reassure us that you will continue your research after it is published, and give us some clues about your future lines of work?

I can reassure everyone who has asked me about this book over the last almost 20 years, it will be published! It is not yet ready but the manuscript is now over 1000 pages and would be published as it is if anything happened to me. There are still 200-300 pages to do, which means one or two more years at my current rate of work. But it would be published even if I died tomorrow, which is not my intention!

Then I have several projects: some involve resuming previous work and updating it: « Nos ancêtres de l’antiquité », « Les ancêtres de Charlemagne », and my work on the Roman families. I'm also working on the major Athenian families from the 5^th century BC to the 5^th century AD.

I'd also like to finish work on the families of the Roman Republican period. And then I have some studies on some medieval families that do not fit chronologically in the second volume of "Préhistoire des Capétiens". They will be either articles or a separate book in the same way as I was able to do on the families of southern Gaul. I have work for many more years to come. But I don't foresee anything on northern Gaul ... for now anyway!

Thank you Christian, and good luck in your work!

                                       Copyright Antoine Barbry

---

[1] In his book « La formation territoriale des principautés belges au Moyen Âge ». Brussels. 1902

Luigi Cavalli Sforza

Luigi Cavalli Sforza, a photo by antoinebarbry on Flickr.

Cavalli Sforza on "race purity"

One day, in a Milanese bookshop, I had some sort of illumination: I was holding in my hand a book in Italian and was thinking that its title was kind of summarizing in three words my main interests… However, my Italian still being a bit rough (in particular for genetics-related publications) I ordered online the English translation and received a few days later at home Luigi-Luca Cavalli-Sforza's book: "Genes, peoples and languages"[1] that Jared Diamond had found "doubly interesting: as a window into the history of all of us, and as a window into the mind of a remarkable scientist".

Until this particular day, I would have been embarrassed to give much details on L. Cavalli Sforza and his work. I was only remembering his surname because it was reminding me of the Sforza family, Dukes of Milan who built a massive castle that is still proudly standing in the city centre. My interest in the genetic side of history and genealogy was pretty recent[2]. But I had convinced myself it was time to learn, and this book was a fairly good way to start.

Cavalli Sforza is an Italian population geneticist, Professor (now Emeritus) at Stanford since 1970. "Genes, peoples and languages" could be described as an accessible summary of his work. Accessible, because one doesn't need any particular knowledge of genetics and DNA to understand his main lines of thought and his explanations.

I will try in the next weeks to summarize the main ideas developed in this book and point out the interesting debates it contributes to.

Aware of the ideological potential of genetics when used for other purposes, CS starts by reminding his readers that the main genetic differences are between individuals and not between population or "races". Genetics is instrumental in shaping us, but so to are our cultural, social and physical environments. So, before coming back to the main objective of his research and his book -providing a clear picture of the expansions and migrations out of Africa- CS feels the duty to discuss the scientific basis for racism to clarify his thoughts on the matter once for all.

He notes that most people do not distinguish between biological and cultural heredity. Genetically determined traits are very stable over time, unlike socially determined or learned behaviours which can change very rapidly. He then recalls why it is partially understandable that in the past centuries, since only visible traits could be studied, people could imagine that pure races existed. But with the drastic improvement in scientific knowledge he describes as absurd the persistence of this belief. To achieve even partial "purity" (a genetic homogeneity that is never achieved spontaneously in any population) it would require at least twenty generations of "inbreeding" (brother-sister or parent-children matings repeated many times). Such inbreeding would have severe consequences for the health and fertility of the children.

Our perception of racial purity is therefore truly superficial, limited to body surface, which is determined by climate. Furthermore, our poor understanding of the hereditary mechanism of familiar physical characteristics (height, skin, hair and eye color) is due to their interaction with non-genetic, environmental factors.

TO BE FOLLOWED

---

[1] Penguin Books. 2000. London

[2] I will soon tell you more about it