Talk:Franks

Frank haplotype
There are multiple problems with this addition. What we have is one obscure primary source that reports a small number of people buried in a Frankish cemetery had these haplotypes. It is completely impossible to conclude from this that all of the Franks were a particular haplotype - that is just not how it works. You can only conclude that those specific individual Franks were of that haplotype, or that the Franks included people of that haplotype. Anything else is going beyond the data. Likewise, the text as it stands is badly described and badly referenced. Most importantly, though, fixing all of this won't solve the problem, because it is both WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE. Find for me a general (secondary) account of the Franks that accepts the conclusion of this study and deems it worthwhile information to include in their account, and then we can consider the appropriateness of including it. Until then it is just one unconfirmed, over-interpreted, badly cited and inaccurately summarized piece of non-noteworthy trivia. Agricolae (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This study was done on behalf of the Minister of Culture of Netherlands(said in my source) and is directly hosted on the website of the Minister(link below). If you think i have misinterpreted this study, feel free to read it and tell me where i am wrong. --Tibatto (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * https://cultureelerfgoed.nl/sites/default/files/publications/lauwerier_2014_ram_222_merovingers_in_een_villa_2.pdf::I
 * I don't know what you think you are reading, but haplogroup J2 is mentioned exactly 8 times in the entire document (at least that turn up on a text search - seriously? citing a 240+ page document is the best you can do? they put those different numbers at the tops of all of the pages for a reason). Six of them appear in a single string of text on pp. 106-107 (translated):


 * "In addition, for all (possible) male individuals, in our previous study we tried to type the Y-haplogroup. This was only possible for individuals 15 and 20, to whom haplogroup J2 could be assigned. Our method could not further delineate within J2.  For individual 15, previous research based on the Y-STR profile predicted haplogroup J2a1. This can now be refined to J2a1b (99% probability).  For individual 20, based on the Y-STR profile, haplogroup J2b is predicted (100% probability). In both cases we confirm that the predicted haplogroups are the [previously] typed haplogroups.  Y-haplogroup J2 represents 2.7% of Dutch men and is now relatively rare in the Netherlands.  For the other male individuals too few characteristics are typed to reliably determine the haplogroup."


 * The only other two times haplogroup J2 is mentioned is in the table presenting the STR data on p. 107, where all it does it list the recovered STR counts for each locus and at the bottom name the haplogroup those numbers would represent. Later, on p. 109, it briefly mentions that the haplogroup of #15 is rare, representing 0.27% of the global population, and 0.14% of Dutch men, and that the isotope levels they read suggest individual #15 is not of local origin, and that having haplogroup J suggests the family line may have originated outside of Europe.


 * Nowhere does it say anything about J2 representing the haplogroup of the Franks, let alone that the Franks were exclusively of this haplogroup (European populations haven't been exclusively one haplogroup since before the last ice age). This is not a valid source for the text you added, as it says nothing of the sort.  This is evidence that two Frankish men had different J2 haplotypes. It doesn't even say there were three typed samples as you represent in your edit.  Any deduction about Franks as a whole from these two men is entirely your own (or perhaps that of some blog where you read it?) and completely without foundation.  Any statement about Anatolia is your own original research.  Any statement about it being interesting is your own opinion.  None of it has any business being in the article.  Agricolae (talk) 04:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Having just read the source, I'm firmly with Agricolae, here. The addition of these haplogroups and especially the 'Anatolian connection' have no place in this article. Besides, you cannot draw general conclusions on a group based on a sample size of two. Kleuske (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Looks at Table S6.34, individual 18 is positive for several STR markers belonging to J2a1b. --Tibatto (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am going to have to answer from memory, because the pdf link is now reporting an error, but this is not how it works. Many haplotypes are surprisingly similar across the majority of their loci, so you can't look at a bunch of data and conclude 'a lot of its loci match type XX, so I am going to decide it is type XX' unless you have recovered sufficient data from the locus or loci that specifically distinguish the types from each other.  The authors, the experts who actually carried out this study, conclude that they recovered insufficient data to enable them to identify the haplotype of individual 18, so we don't get to draw our own conclusions. Agricolae (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Agricolae, and I've seen dozens of discussions like this on WP over many years and I his position is the agreed position on Wikipedia. You have to remember that Wikipedia sets its goals low, so that they can be achieved by amateur editors: we just summarize things which are already published. We do not try to go beyond them (except maybe in the sense of better presentation!)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The latest iteration has no mention of J2 being indicative of Franks - it doesn't even mention Franks, but we do have a detailed discussion that one skeleton was not identified by the authors of a study but somebody on a dead blog thought they could identify it? Why is any of this important enough to include in an article about the Franks, and not WP:UNDUE? Agricolae (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with what Tibatto has said, but I think the study should be on the page-- perhaps not in its own section, but in a subsection. Arguments that it is likely false seem to be OR on the part of editors to me, although they are probably in good faith. By the way the finds are far from implausible imo -- although J2 is not common in Western Europe it does have a significant present (2-5%) and this would be consistent with past finds that elites often have unrepresentatively high frequencies of rare haplogroups (often due to bottlenecks) -- one Pharaoh dynasty had R1b (which is typically at low frequency for Egyptians), T is quite rare overall but shows up in a lot of royals, etc. Of course these bottlenecks happen with plenty of things -- hence the redheaded Turkish sultans in a country where redheads are a quite small minority of the native population. The source for the genetics seems WP:RS to me: []. Although Tibatto used some dubious arguments and edit warred, you can't judge the material by his actions. This is relevant material that belongs on the page -- I will restore it, mentioning the specific context so that it is clear the page is not saying that all Franks were J2. --Calthinus (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Does the study really not even mention Franks Calthinus? If that is so then any kind of mention on this article (which is about Franks, and not DNA studies) is really implying a conclusion which does not come from the source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong but this does look RS to me ([], quoting this paper which does not load for me but its from a university []), and says this in the quote : The people found was buried at a Merovingian buriel site in Borgharen in the Dutch province of Limburg,... they were wealthy and buried with locals... [artifacts are] consistent with the Roman-Frankish transitional period. Late Roman to early Middle Ages. Individual N15 J2a1b-M67 99%. Individual N20 J2b-M102 100% (probably M241). As I said I could be wrong but this looks sufficient to me, and I will be looking for more on this later perhaps.--Calthinus (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that no source is RS for something it does not actually say :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It only mentions Franks early in the document, not where it is talking about the DNA. It makes no attempt to discuss the DNA results in the context of the Franks as a whole nor speculate what it means in terms of the larger tribe.  The study concludes simply that these skeletons have these types (and based on isotope ratios, that one was not from where he was buried).  They are appropriately mute on the 'big picture' that is being promoted here. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I also see nothing like the claims that our article has been making lately.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What is relevant for discussion now is whether what is [in this diff] is backed. I have clearly distanced myself and my edit from Tibatto's claims.--Calthinus (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't backed by a WP:RS, just some blogger's off-the-cuff remarks. Likewise, though, this isn't the only thing that is relevant - it could be fully supported amnd still be the case that the haplotypes of two specific members (with no reason to believe they are representative) may still be too trivial to merit mention in an article about an entire group of people.  At the risk of an over-the-top analogy, in an article on Americans, we wouldn't give the DNA haplotypes of individual Americans, nor any other characteristics of individual members, unless we have a source that draws that exact conclusion.  Such conclusions, about relative importance, is a decision that Wikipedia leaves to experts in the field in question, and then we emulate them.  We have one, and only one, reliable source here, and all it says is that the person in burial 15 has one type, and 20 has a different one, and that is not about The Franks at all, just about two people in a Merovingian cemetery.  Agricolae (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Who is saying the results are likely false? Nobody here has said that.  (I have said that Tibatto's misrepresentation of the results is false, and I stand by that.)  What I am saying is that the inclusion of the haplotypes of a couple of random Franks is WP:UNDUE because no source, not the authors and not any secondary source any one has come up with, think this is meaningful information indicative of the Franks as a whole, and that is what this page is about.  Maybe it is WP:TOOSOON, that over time this detail will work its way into scholarly accounts of the Franks, but that is currently not the case.  All of this speculation about the meaning of this result for the larger population, bottlenecks, Egyptians, etc., is impossible to support as relates to the Franks based on a paper that simply reports that two skeletons have this type - it is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE.  Please do not put this trivia back in until there is consensus for its inclusion. Agricolae (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If I'm not wrong, I saw you saying it was unlikely to truly be the case either on 3RR or Tibatto's TP-- but this very interesting result piqued my interest. The way I wrote the text reflects what Rottensteiner discussed-- the jury is still out on why this more typically Near Eastern haplogroup was found in the remains with a wide range of viable theories. I wrote it specifically that way to avoid the reader think it implies one thing or another. I believe it is helpful to have this sort of interesting (and exciting) find on the page -- as you can see from the discourse in Rottensteiner it is generating discussion in the field, which is interesting and relevant. --Calthinus (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way you say "no source" -- this is not the case: []: "Individual N15 J2a1b-M67 99%. Individual N20 J2b-M102 100% (probably M241)." --Calthinus (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What I said on Tibatto's Talk page is that it is extremely unlikely to be the case that the Franks were EXCLUSIVELY J2 (that not a single member of their population had a Y chromosome that was not J2), because it is unlikely any population of the era was exclusively any haplogroup. That the result piqued your interest is insufficient for it to be noteworthy.  Has it piqued the interest of any historian writing about the Franks?  You say you wrote it so it didn't relate to the Franks as a whole, but if it doesn't relate to the Franks as a whole, why is it to be featured like this in an article about the Franks as a whole?  Further, blog posts don't establish anything - they are not WP:RS, they don't count.  A blog post only shows that the one person who wrote it is interested (or, given that the entire blog is dead, was interested as some point in the past).  If the only place you find speculation about the meaning of a scientific result is on a blog then nothing whatsoever should be said about the meaning of the result on Wikipedia.  In this case, the author is someone who was interested in J2, not someone interested in the Franks, so no, this post from a dead blog by someone interested in a different topic entirely does precisely zero to show that scholars who study the Franks think this is noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The blog actually quoted such speculation in the original. But there are some good points here. --Calthinus (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it really doesn't. It quotes speculation that the cemetery location may be meaningful, that one horse arrived by trade or migration, that they took into account the preexisting burials (but not why or to what extent), and that #15 came from Dutch sand-lands, and his family line may have originated outside of western Europe.  Anything about origin beyond this, such as that they may represent "Sarmatians or Thracians in Roman military service, Jews, Levantines or Avar invaders" is not derived in any way from speculation in the original.  Most importantly, that these individuals represent prototypical Franks (and hence are relevant at all) is not something the original study speculated about. Agricolae (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not doubting your good faith, I hope you didn't think I did. Let us discuss these sources as they come in. Posting the study I found below momentarily. --Calthinus (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Let me just expand on that last point of mine. There are two issues here - is the content reliable (policy WP:RS), and is the content noteworthy (WP:UNDUE)?  If we, for the sake of argument, set aside the fact that this blog is not a reliable source, that would address only the first question.  That someone compiling information on J2 thinks this study is noteworthy might (again, in this alternative reality where blog posts are considered reliable) make it noteworthy for a Wikipedia article on J2, but it would still not make it noteworthy for a discussion about the Franks.  You would need to have a source written from the perspective of the Franks that mentions this to make it noteworthy here (and even then, it depends on the relative coverage given - if someone writes a 500 page book and only mentions the DNA result in a single sentence, it may be giving undue weight to mention it at all, given how much shorter our entire page is than that 500 page book). Agricolae (talk) 22:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But this does not say J2 is the dominant haplotype for all Franks. (Honestly, from a sample of two men from one grave site that would be an insane conclusion to draw. They could be brothers, and they might be men with a Gallo-Roman male-line ancestry. Just for example.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've said I agree the claim that J2 was some "Frankish" haplotype is incredibly unlikely, and [my edit] modified the material to make it clear that there is a debate (as seen in Rottensteiner) about whether the haplogroup was local or something else, and we don't know what to make of it yet. Also, they could not have been brothers (wiht the same father at least) as they had different haplogroups, J2a-M67 and J2b.--Calthinus (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * But like Agricolae says, we have 2 men from the Merovingian period. Are they Franks? (What is a Frank in this period, genetically speaking? The Merovingians origins were driven by a dynamic frontier situation with Romanized Germanic soldiers and the locals obviously ending up in some sort of new group.) The authors do not say so, but if we put it in this article which is not about DNA we seem to be implying it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well the view that one can define what a Frank is "genetically speaking" given the noted historical inter-group dynamics could be provocative. Anyhow, I can see now why it might not be the best idea to have archaeogenetic trivia on this page--- perhaps better on the page about the clades themselves. You two are right, it could be misinterpreted as generalizing to the group as a whole. --Calthinus (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * my apologies for all of this. This entire conversation would not have happened had I not mistook the commentary of the translator (Robert, thought it was a surname) for the commentary of the researchers whose work was translated. As I have already said in a previous post-- I'm sorry, you were right it does not belong on the page.--Calthinus (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem - these things happen. Agricolae (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Dutch study found
Here: []. Full disclosure I don't speak Dutch and I"m not comfortable relying on Google Translate for apparently(?) contentious issues, so anyone who does speak Dutch is greatly appreciated. Other relevant source discussing this material here [], which has translated excerpts. --Calthinus (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This academia.edu deposit is the same exact publication we have been discussing the whole time. Agricolae (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The translated excerpts from Rottensteiner [] don't appear?--Calthinus (talk) 21:42, 26 February 2018 (UTC)


 * The ones at the bottom? Yeah, that looks reasonable enough, but where does that list of scientific findings get you, with no more elaborate interpretation provided than that #15 wasn't local and may be from a male line that originated outside of Europe?  It says nothing about The Franks, which is what we are talking about here. Agricolae (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Religion
The Franks were converted to Christianity before the Romans. When the Franks invaded Rome it was to convert them away from Trinitarianism to Arianism. It a fallacy to think that the Franks were pagans since they were Christianized in the first century, well before the Romans. The Reason why the Franks separated from the Roman Empire was over Catholicism. They were not barbarians as portrayed by popular history. Legends state that they were Christianized well before the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. It is Catholic myth that they were not converted until the fifth century. The Franks were dead against any idea of a Trinity for God. God and Jesus were separated beings.


 * What rubbish. No nation was Christianized in the 1st century, still less one which lay well outside the Roman Empire. What possible evidence is there for these "legends"? What legends?GPinkerton (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)


 * No complete rubbish in this case, because unfortunaltely, both of you mixed up time lines and centuries. Representatives of Arianism were quite active in mission activities in the era of collapsing Roman Empire: As far as Central Europe, especially today's France and Germany is concerned, there had been remarkable mission anctivities. In fact, large regions had been pre-catholic Christian at the beginning of early medieval epoche. Regarding the Franks: If you take a look at the map and check where Weser-Rhine Franks (by some seen as "Proto-Franks") dwelled, these people must have been under Roman cultural and religious, hence partially Christian, influence. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weser-Rhine_Germanic . Chances are that at least somes of the leading Franks had already been Christians, however not Catholics, at this point. Of course, Gregor of Tours and others would not admit this latter on, as Arianism had been "anathema" and not supposed to be mentioned in documents written by any Catholic clergymen. 188.99.27.209 (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Paganism- bees
The Bees are a Christian symbol which you can find in many places. The word of God is Honey to the Bees, The bees are attracted by the purity. In the book "The Lost Gospel," Asenath, the bride of Joseph, attracts Bees to her. This is all Christian and in no way refers to any pagan practices. The Franks were Christians before the Romans and they started to convert to Catholicism in the 5th and 6th century.
 * I think that looking over what historians write there is no certainty about how interpret them? On Wikipedia we have the job of just trying to give a balanced summary of what experts publish. Perhaps there are several proposals about this? But then we should list all the proposals in a balanced way, with most emphasis on the leading proposals whatever they are.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The insects depicted might have been cicadas as well, we cannot be sure on this. However, in case these insects were meant to be cicadas, this is a Christian symbol as well, as in ancient and early medieval times, cicadas had been seen as a symbol of Christian believe in resurrection of "sisters and brothers who died in Christ". A king burried in cloths showing cicadas therefore would be a Christian king. 188.99.27.209 (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Are the Franks jewish since they have a J2 y-chromosome haplotype?
Are the Franks jewish since they have a J2 y-chromosome haplotype? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.225.54 (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't believe in everything commercial providers like "My H***" and others spread. In case you submit a sample of your cat, they might find Ashkenazi genes in this sample ;) Anyway... Scientific background is that none of these commercial providers was able to find accurate and reliable historical gene pools yet. However, these historical gene pools are absolutely essential to compare (assumed) ancient populations to modern samples. Deviations from true historical gene pools cannot be spotted as long as you do not know the exact historical gene pools. 188.99.27.209 (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This article fails pretty badly.
One major thing the article fails at is staying away from french propaganda. It basically parades around the idea that the french, besides the name of the modern country, are the descendants of the Frankish conquerors who ruled Gaul.

The reality looks very different. The Franks spoke Germanic languages and usually comprised of the upper ruling class until they eventually got absorbed (or died out) into the gaulish population. They saw themselves as a distinct people from the romaized gaulish population, this is something they themselves wrote down in their codes of law.

Their names were Germanic names and they spoke Frankish dialects, language in continouation with modern Dutch and German. This linguistic practice eventually died out relatively early in the middle ages. One can also see that the names of the Franks living in Gaul had no meaning to the population they ruled over and eventually turned into the strange forms still used nowadays in the french and partly the english language.

For example Clovis.

Actual name, Chlodowig (or something similar). The Ch being pronounced as the Germanic x. Modern Germanic Names, Lodowig (Dutch), Ludwig(German).

The article tries to suggest some kind of Frankish continueation far beyond the actual decline of the Franks in Gaul. It starts using the Terms French and Frankish interchangeably and fails to note that despite the name used for western Europeans in the mid to late middle ages, there is hardly anything Frankish anymore in the former Frankish ruled territory in the west besides it's name, France.


 * All Europeans including the French saw France as a Frankish "continuation". The language did die out in many Frankish areas which had been bilingual, though no one seems to have seen that as interesting at the time. Clearly being Frankish was not defined by language by that time. Language is not the same as ethnicity, and neither is biological descent. Ethnicity is based on how people see themselves, so modern scholars now realize that it was pointless of 19th century scholars, who are apparently your source, to try to redefine the ethnicities of historical peoples as if they were wrong, and can be corrected. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there is no clear continuation. "All Europeans" and a lot of Non-Europeans had been deeply impressed by the Frankish kingdom as leading super power and cultural, as well as economic, power house of that time - but this doesn't allow any conclusions on ethnic questions. Obviously, a large portion of old Frankish nobility lost their original roots - but this doesn't allow the conclusion that they didn't care or that nobody cared about this, either. You are also wrong in your views on "ethnicity", as "ethnicity" is not "based on how people see themselves" or which narratives they tend to accept. Okay, if you believe so, you might be able to partially explain "modern" 19th century nation building efforts that abused "ethinicty" as "justification" for harsh nationalism and racist theories, including "modern" British-style national occultism, but nevertheless, you still have no clue about medevial or ancient societies and cultures. 188.99.27.209 (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Andrew Lancaster is entirely correct here, including that ethnicity is based on how people see themselves. That's what we mean when we use the term here on Wikipedia because that's what the consensus among scholars is. Furthermore, telling others that they "have no clue", especially when they clearly have a WP:CLUE, is not considered persuasive. Generalrelative (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The lede, and how to handle the later medieval concept of a Frank
I have shortened a messy part of the lede about medieval terminology. The information was not reflected in the body, goes way of topic, and contains questionable assertions. (For example, it confuses the lingua franca with French, and its remarks about most crusaders being "French" is unclearly defined or sourced. Many of these "French" people came from Lorraine for example.) I also post a remark about the edit here on talk because it raises more issues about how WP should handle the medieval concept of a Frank. As recently discussed at Godfrey of Bouillon we currently have a situation on WP where the typical medieval usage of the term is not really explained anywhere. Where is the "main article" for this? On the dab page Frank, "Franks" (this article) is supposedly about "a medieval Germanic people" (which is not really what this article is about) while for "Frank", "a term in the Muslim world for all western Europeans, particularly during the Crusades", our readers are directed to Farang which is seems to have started out as a term purely about the Persian term, but now also contains remarks about some other languages (but not for example Greek or Arabic). I would say that the second usage is not only one in the Muslim world but also one used more generally about crusaders and that period of the middle ages. The way I see it, the explanation about later usage should for now be on this article. We already have a section for it, and so when we need to link to an explanation about the ethnicity of someone like Godfrey we could eventually hope to have a section here for that? I am not sure what Farang article should be about, or whether it should exist. How do others see it? Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a short article on Franks (High Middle Ages) or Franks (Crusades) would be the way. Or just a linkable section in Crusades or Crusading movement. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to begin with, I am thinking there won't be any quick miracle cure to be honest and so for now I have at least made sure that this article will point people in the right direction. Coming to your proposals, I would not focus it only upon the crusades. Making it about the High Middle Ages is maybe a bit better but it seems to imply that there is an easy dividing line between the earlier and later uses. Already during Merovingian times the concept had started spreading beyond any purely ancestral idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think a separate article is needed. Perhaps Frank (term), an article that could cover how the meaning of "Frank" (and its relations in other languages) has evolved over time? Srnec (talk) 18:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That may well be. The Farang article (which I think shouldn't exist in its current form) and the strange little list at the end of this article could perhaps be the basis of something. OTOH upon reflection I think this article can't avoid dealing to some extent with the evolution in meanings because they start so early, and there is a real continuity "behind" the change which is important to what the Franks are for history.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)