Of course, you're right about 6% being small. My point was 6% means "a lot" of North-Africans entered Arabia in the past, which I didn't know. I didn't know Arabia's males liked to take wives from Northwestern Africa to such a big rate (big is a relative and ambiguous term of course).
Quote:
Their is very few people identifying as Libyans.
You mean there is very few Libyans identifying as Berbers. Arabs from Libya see themselves as Libyan Arabs.
Libyan is not a synonym of Berber as it was during Antiquity (Libya was the name ancient Greeks gave to the region of North-Africa West to Egypt also known as present-day Arab Maghreb), today it si only the name of a citizen of the modern country of Libya.
Quote:
Most of the Libyan Berbers tend to be Touregs a mixture of Berbers and Blacks.
Since Tuaregs' lands are located thousands of miles from Northern Maghreb and separated by the Sahara, it is rare the 2 populations have contact that is why I have never seen a Tuareg in person. I cannot tell how Tuaregs are exactly, I saw only pictures of them, some are totally Black, some look like Northern Maghrebis with a darker skin, and some look mixed Maghrebi/Sub-Saharan African.
This one is from an Algerian Tuareg father, I don't know whether his mother is a Tuareg or a Northern Maghrebi.
Quote:
Yes Algeria and Morocco are not Arabized to an extent as Eastern North Africa. Morocco and Algeria did not have waves of the Arab tribes settling in mass as what in Libyo-Tunisa
The more profound Arabisation in Tunisia and Libya doesn't imply that Tunisian and Libyan Arabs feel more Arab than Moroccan and Algerian Arabs. Let me explain. The only difference is in Tunisia and Libya there aren't large groups of people who speak Berber plus Arabic, thus they do not know a lot about the Berber roots of the area, but they're exactly the same society and are included in the same Arab-Islamic entity for centuries. However, Libya is a bit isolated from the Arab Maghreb, it shares a common history with it and is now included in the definition of Maghreb since the creation of the Union of Arab Maghreb in 1989, but Morocco-Algeria-Tunisia are definitely a unique entity in term of history, language, civilisation, and culture, they're almost identical.
Finally, as I said in an other thread, most of the members of the minority who still speak Berber dialects in Maghrebi states speak Arabic too and also see themselves as Arab, with the exception of the people of Kabylie in Algeria. They speak Arabic too but many of them refuse to be labeled as Arabs for some reasons, in contrast with Algerian Chaoui Berber speakers, who usually claim their Arabness for instance, the Algerian hero Boumediene was himself from a Berber-speaking family and was one of the greatest pan-Arab leader. The problem in most medias, especially Western, is they tend to create a very distinct cultural and ethnical difference bewteen Berbers and Maghrebi Arabs, while they identify as the same population. This is the reason why most people are disinformed and often think of 2 ethnicities living in the region, comparing it to the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, although this situation is very different as Kurds have always been a separate population and have their own history, while Maghrebis whether they're Arabic-speaking or Berber/Arabic-speaking share the same history and are of the same stock.
The reason why Western medias often show this subjective view of reality, is there are several extremist and separatist Berberist groups who are in the West and create an intense disinforming anti-Arab propaganda that doesn't represent the Berber-speaking people of Maghreb. Such groups usually claim that Berbers reject Islam and feel it is an alien religion in their homeland, which of course is senseless.
Many extremist Lebanese groups do the same and tend to say in France that "most Lebanese hate Arabs and consider themselves only Phoenician Canaanites", they equal the language spoken in Lebanon to a unique tongue and claim it is not Arabic but Lebanese.
Personally, even as a speaker of the Maghrebi variety of Arabic, that is not completely understood in the Middle-East, I have absolutely no difficulty to understand Lebanese Arabic and I can't see any difference with Syrian and Palestinian dialects, I would even say the structure of Lebanese is almost the same as the Arabic my mother taught me besides the word are pronounced differently, which is the reason why I had no difficulty to communicate with Levantine Arabs after a few hours of adaptation. The same occurs in Germany, Northerners and Southerners (including Austrians) speak different dialects and can't always understand each other, besides when they speak standard German, the language of the medias and administration that isn't widely spread, it is the equivalent of classic Arabic.
It is sad that Western medias often let those people spread their false informations because millions of people in the West, who are already very poorely informed about the Arab World, will only be more disinformed. Everyone can tell their opinions and every political group has the right to express its ideas, but by letting a minority represent the majority journalists only disinform their own people. It is like a Middle-Eastern chanel that would popularise the fight of a very tiny group of Alsatians who want to be independent from France, showing those people as a major political power in the region and making Arab viewers think there is a an intense anti-French sentiment in the region of Alsace.
Quote:
However the U6 might be intorduced by Canary Islander Gunaches who are belived to be related to the Berbers, known as the Guanaches.
Native Canary Islanders were indeed a Berber-speaking pepple, and the whole population was exterminated and enslaved (including the kings) by the Portugese and the Spaniards, so it could be an explanation too. Not to mention the countless Spanish and Portugese incursions in Maghrebi states' coastal area starting in the 15th centuries (the most known incursion happened at the battle of the three kings in 1578), thousands of people were stolen from the coastal towns by furtive raids and enslaved in Europe, Maghrebis captured thousands of Southern Europeans too and sold them into slavery at the same time. The 16th/17th/18th centuries was a period of intense slavery between Southern Europe and Maghrebi countries, called "la course" in French. The ennemy ships had to enter the foreign territories and to leave it in a quick way to capture the bigger number of slaves before the armed forces come.
Quote:
Religouse intermarriages might have occured but at that time it was considered treasonus.
It depends, the Islamic civilisation of Iberia was open-minded, even alcohol was freely avaible in Muslim families. When the very religious Berber Almoravids arrived from North-Africa in the 11th century, they were very shocked and changed everything.
Quote:
As for the Persians and Kurds they don't like Arabs, they are completely different. Persians usually are taller, and hairer than Arabs, and often have slant eyes, which might indicate that they have Mongoloid admixture. While the Iraqis tend to look like transition of Gulf-Arabs and Persians. This probably do to the long Persian rule.
I can sometimes distinguish Arabs from Turks, Kurds, and Persians, but in most cases they seem to be the same in my eyes (I had many Turkish and Persian friends here in France, and there were often demonstrations of Kurds in favour of Ocalan in the streets). It is clear that Asian Arabs are genetically closer to those 3 populations than to Northwestern African Arabs, who still look identical to them too.
You probably have a more sophisticated method of analysis however, I didn't think about details. I don't remember whether Persians are taller (I knew one who was very short), but many Turks I knew were very hairy, and it occurs much less in the Arabs.
Quote:
The Iberians, and especially the Portugesse have the highest Sub-Saharan admixture. This probably is related to the slave trade, and many of the Blacks were probably absorbed into the Portugesse people. As for the Southern Italians its probably came with the Moorish invaders, the Greeks and Persians both have known about Sub-Saharans, some of them were used as slaves, we can see from the paintings of the ancient Greeks their was a Sub-Saharan element in the population. Generaly South Europeans have more Sub-Sahran admixture than their Northern European counter parts who have more East Asian admixture. Finns have the highest Mongoloid admixture in Europe.
Yes, it is probably due to all those events plus to the Carthaginian occupation, but also to the earlier events that occured in those regions when they were first settled as I told you earlier. By the way, some sources say the earliest people of Greece came from Africa and Western Asia and were then invaded and fused with Greek-speaking aliens. Some scholars suggest a part of the ancestors of Sardinian Italians came from Northwestern Africa. In addition, some believe Etruscans (an ancient Italic group) came from Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey. So since the core of those populations may be partially Middle-Eastern and Northwestern African, it would explain why many of them look like Middle-Easterners and Northwestern Africans, rather than the theory of Sub-Saharan slavery and the recent occupations.
Quote:
Yes Alot of South Europeans look Middle Easterners, some Neo-Nazis even mistake attack them for it, because they are little darker, however culturaly they are not part of Middle Eastern society, but European, much like us in way.
Of course, they are Christians and have a different way of life. However, in many regions of Southern Europe, like parts of Italy by example, their life style is very similar to Northwestern Africa in many ways: making siesta in the afternoon because of the intense heat (common in Spain too), being machistic to women (although it also happens in Northern Europe, it is more visible in Mediterranean countries), not to mention the similarities in cuisine like the use of olive oil. In addition, the wear of veil was very common in Southern Europe for centuries, although it tends to be less seen, it was a trait of Mediterranean culture long before Christian and then Islamic faiths came and made them religious requirements.
Of course those ressemblences do not make Northwestern Africa and Southern Europe close at all, but the fact is Northern Europeans do not seem to feel in the same European civilisation when they go to Southern Italy for instance.
Joined: 02 May 2006 {Posts: 443 } Location: Île-de-France
Posted: Sat 05 Apr 2008 21:29 Post subject:
Quote:
Of course, they are Christians and have a different way of life. However, in many regions of Southern Europe, like parts of Italy by example, their life style is very similar to Northwestern Africa in many ways: making siesta in the afternoon because of the intense heat (common in Spain too), being machistic to women (although it also happens in Northern Europe, it is more visible in Mediterranean countries), not to mention the similarities in cuisine like the use of olive oil. In addition, the wear of veil was very common in Southern Europe for centuries, although it tends to be less seen, it was a trait of Mediterranean culture long before Christian and then Islamic faiths came and made them religious requirements.
A long time ago, I dated a girl whose parents were from Reggio di Calabria-which is right at the tip of the toe of the boot in Italy. A few years later, when I was studying French, I read "Née en France-Histoire d'une jeune beur" by Aïcha Benaïssa. As I read that book, I realized I was imagining the author's family as family of the girl I dated. The cultural similarities were very strong, with the the domination of women by the family, the belief in the "evil eye" and spells, and the controlling father who in turn fears his own mother, the separation of the women and the men, the older women trying to play matchmaker, the elevation of female purity/virginity excetera. One can see how there is an underlying common culture which has existed probably since pre-roman times that has simply had Islam/Christianity superimposed upon it.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sun 06 Apr 2008 00:39 Post subject:
sirius2008 wrote:
As for Greek lands, it is true they were under Ottoman rule for 6 centuries (from the 14th century to the 1912 First Balkan War, although a Southern part gained independence in the first half of 19th century). But there is also the Byzantine rule of Asia Minor and the rest of the Middle-East, and earlier the rule of Alexander the Great, it lasted for almost 1 millenia and half and those populations came in contact. In Antiquity, Persians also controlled parts of modern Greece, and the today Greco-Turkish island of Cyprus was also conquered by the Mesopotamian empire of Assyria. Cyprus as well as the Greek Islands of Rhodes and Crete were all under Arab rule too during the Islamic era.
Yes, indeed. One of the maps you kindly posted seems to show that the Peloponnese Peninsula was also under Arab rule. Perhaps raids occured. Raiding also normally causes an exchange of genes. Dr. Lou Charlton, formerly of DNAPrint (I really miss her!), always said, "Everyone who ever migrated, invaded, raided, or traded, eventually mated." How true.
sirius2008 wrote:
However, I do not know whether those millenia of cohabitation is the main reason why Greece's population shares specific genes with Middle-Easterners and Sub-Saharans. As you said, there were earlier events in the early history of Greece. By the way, Encarta says that prior to the arrival of the Greek-speaking invaders, there was already a native population that came from the Middle-East and from Africa (perhaps North-Africa, or Sub-Saharan Africa, or both, it isn't precised). I don't know what was their ethnic background and whether they were the same as the modern people of the regions they came from (most likely yes, since it wasn't a long time ago), I don't know what was their number either, but it seems like they're also the ancestors of the Greeks, whose Greek-speaking forefathers came very recently.
Well, studies do indeed show an ancient movement (perhaps 20kya) out of East Africa, carrying with it descendants of Y-chromosome E3b. In Greece, a fairly large percentage (I believe 25% or so) of the population carry a descendant of this marker (mainly a local variant of E-M78). Greeks have more of these markers than other Europeans. Another sub-Saharan Y marker found in Greece is A. There is also East African mtDNA M1 in Greece. Greeks have the Benin strain of HbS, and have HLA markers peculiar to Ethiopians (Oromo, etc.) and some West Africans (Fulani, etc.). Greeks are also the only Europeans bearing cystic fibrosis mutations typical of Black Africans.
There must have been multiple migrations out of Africa to Greece. Frank Snowden, who has studied the African presence in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds, has found much evidence of this. He believes a large sub-Saharan presence established itself in Greece with the Persian army of the 400s B.C. Many more followed in the later Greek and also Roman periods. Anthropologist J. L. Angel has found sub-Saharan characteristics in some Greek crania from nearly all the periods he has studied (going back several thousands of years), except the A.D. 1800s.
sirius2008 wrote:
On this picture " http://static.flickr.com/46/135023364_32aaacdec3_b.jpg " I really think all of the the 5 men who are shown look Northwestern African, they would be seen this way in France and noone would consider them White. By the way, it is interesting to note that during the Paris massacre of October 1961 (Algerian War), Parisian policemen captured many Italians they thought to be Algerians in the streets.
Interestingly, according to J. A. Rogers, when Napoleon ran out of Blacks in his Black brigades, he used southern Italians and Greeks, because they were of similarly dark color! I'll scan the page in for you, when I scan in the page on Moriscos going to France in 1609 (hopefully tonight).
sirius2008 wrote:
As for Corsica and Sardinia, they were directly under North-African rule during the Carthaginian empire (as well as the Balearic islands and Eastern Spain), however at the time of the Islamic civilisation, it is not clear whether those regions and the Southern part of the Italian peninsula were under direct Arab rule or simply victims of raids as you say. I read that it was raids, but many maps show those areas as parts of the Arab Empire, many do not show them as ruled by Arabs, so I cannot tell exactly what happened.
It is hard to determine exactly what happened, but even raids, as mentioned above, introduced new genes. Sometimes raids caused the raiders to gain control of areas for several years.
sirius2008 wrote:
The second hypothesis is the Arab occupation on those lands were too short and not enough important to be mentioned. It is like the Arab occupation in much of France, Arab armies were not driven out in 732, they were only stopped from crossing this site. They were in the Southern half of the country and kept on invading the Northern part after the defeat of Poitiers, reaching the city of Sens near Paris. But as the Ottoman occupation of parts of Austria, this is never shown on maps because it only lasted a few years, the maps usually only show the part of Southern France that remained under Arab rule for about one century.
That is all correct, and I'm glad you brought this up. Many people mistakenly think Charles Martel drove out every last Arab from France in 732. Nothing could be further from the truth. As you say, they were only stopped from crossing the line, and continued to raid in the north for a few years thereafter, and occupied the south for nearly a century. According to J. A. Rogers, the Moors settled in the south and were eventually absorbed. This, as well as the later immigration of Moriscos, has supposedly caused some Auvergnese to have a "Negroid" appearance. This observation of course must be taken with a grain of salt, since what constitutes a "Negroid" appearance varies from person to person, and since the Moriscos would not have largely been of sub-Saharan origin (although at least a small percentage must have been).
Here is a woman from the Auvergne. Unfortunately, it is from Wiki, but the costume seems correct. Some folks I showed the picture to say she looks a bit sub-Saharan:
This gentleman comes from Salerno, in southern Italy. I scanned this pic in from an old encyclopedia called "Lands and Peoples." He certainly doesn't look European in my eyes:
Last edited by William on Sun 06 Apr 2008 02:44; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sun 06 Apr 2008 01:00 Post subject:
ArabianKnight wrote:
The Iberians, and especially the Portugesse have the highest Sub-Saharan admixture. This probably is related to the slave trade, and many of the Blacks were probably absorbed into the Portugesse people. As for the Southern Italians its probably came with the Moorish invaders, the Greeks and Persians both have known about Sub-Saharans, some of them were used as slaves, we can see from the paintings of the ancient Greeks their was a Sub-Saharan element in the population. Generaly South Europeans have more Sub-Sahran admixture than their Northern European counter parts who have more East Asian admixture. Finns have the highest Mongoloid admixture in Europe.
Actually, autosomal studies, according to DNAPrint, show that southern Europeans on average, including Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, and Greeks (and all associated islands) have about 5% or so sub-Saharan admixture. Some individuals have less, and others have more, of course. But the average is about 5%. mtDNA studies show similar sub-Saharan admixture results for Portugal, Spain, southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia. Generally, the results of mtDNA studies for these areas show anywhere from about 3% to nearly 15% L and M1 markers. Y-chromosome admixture results are lower for all these areas. There aren't a whole lot of mtDNA and Y-chromosome studies available on Greeks, but those that do exist show admixture (mtDNA lineage M1, Y lineage A and various ancient E3b descendants). HLA studies, as mentioned above, show relatedness between Greeks and sub-Saharans. The only Europeans to bear cystic fibrosis mutations typical of Black Africans are Greeks.
Sub-Saharans have had a presence in Italy (including the islands) for millennia, according to Africana, by Gates and Appiah. According to Frank Snowden, many Black Africans were present in Italy and Greece in ancient times. According to Insight Guide: Sicily, Black Africans were among the immigrants to Sicily during the Saracen rule.
Yes, indeed, southern Europeans generally do have higher levels of sub-Saharan admixture than northern Europeans, although the latter has this as well. As for East Asian admixture, Finns and some groups of Russians have relatively high levels. Other eastern Europeans, like Hungarians, Romanians, etc., also type with some East Asian admixture.
A long time ago, I dated a girl whose parents were from Reggio di Calabria-which is right at the tip of the toe of the boot in Italy. A few years later, when I was studying French, I read "Née en France-Histoire d'une jeune beur" by Aïcha Benaïssa. As I read that book, I realized I was imagining the author's family as family of the girl I dated. The cultural similarities were very strong, with the the domination of women by the family, the belief in the "evil eye" and spells, and the controlling father who in turn fears his own mother, the separation of the women and the men, the older women trying to play matchmaker, the elevation of female purity/virginity excetera. One can see how there is an underlying common culture which has existed probably since pre-roman times that has simply had Islam/Christianity superimposed upon it.
Indeed, it is a lot of similarities, what you described is exact. However, the description is a bit old and stereotypical because not all families are that mysoginistic and intolerant, especially among the "Beurs", French born Arabs. As a Beur myself, I did not grow up in a mysoginistic house, we had to respect our sisters and our father was not more sanctionous to his daughters than to his sons, perhaps it was the contrary by the way because he seemed to be more touched by girls. As for my cousins who live in Algeria, some are very mysoginistic to their sisters, while some are very respectful. It depends on the personality of the men, and of the women, if they're strong as many mediterranean women are, they will not be dominated, many even dominate their husbands from what I have seen in Algeria. But in all cases, the sister is always superior to her younger brothers, and they can't dare to disrespect her because it is considered to be a violation of familial hierarchy as in Western societies. Also, as you have noticed, in such societies a woman becomes extremely respected when she becomes a mother, perhaps more than men, because mothers are those who give birth, raise children, make food for them, bath them, cry for them, and take care of them for their whole childhood, which isn't always the case of males.
In my opinion, but it is only a personal opinion, mysoginism is more visible in Mediterranean countries because many Mediterranean males are mysgionistic in public and don't hide it, it is normal to them, unlike Northern European men who usually mistreat their wives only privately, there are huge statistics about millions of women who are raped or/and murdered each year by their husbands in Russia or the U.S.A for instance.
It is also important to remember that the mysoginism that we found in those countries is not very different from what existed in France a few decades ago. In the past, a French woman could not have sex with a man if not married without being called a slut by everyone, and having a child was even worse and seen as immoral, same for wearing clothes that were too short. This mentality disappeared, besides among elders, but to this day mysoginistic behaviours still remain. For instance, a woman who has sex 5 times a week with 5 different men, will be demonised and called a whore, while a man will be glorified by the society for being a "hot guy", a woman who wears an extremely short skirt will be criticised too while a man will not face the same hostility. What's surprising is women themselves are mysoginistic, in the sense they would also call their own counterparts whores for having sex 5 times a day with 5 different men. It is a cultural trait, that is not very logical in sciences or even in religion (men have to be virgin too in the three Abrahamic religions).
Fortunately, today French women are mostly respected and enjoy full freedom without depending on males because they fought for this in the 60s and 70s. It is also changing in Northwestern African societies, after the independences women went to school and they're now educated and aware about their rights, they know if they're unhappy with a husband they can easily kick him out and seek for divorce. In the past, women were illiterate and thought men were gods who had all powers, because they worked and brought the money a family needs to live. According to the New York Times, women make up 70 percent of Algeria’s lawyers and 60 percent of its judges. Women dominate medicine too. Increasingly, women contribute more to household income than men. In addition, sixty percent of university students are women.
A woman who is a scientist or a lawyer would not accept to be treated in a bad way because she knows she is not inferior, that's the difference with an uneducated illiterate female who is naive and inoffensive because her intellectual capacities didn't evolve.
Yes, indeed. One of the maps you kindly posted seems to show that the Peloponnese Peninsula was also under Arab rule. Perhaps raids occured.
Yes in red in the map, I had not noticed it, thanks. I do not know whether there were raids against Peloponese but Arab armies have besieged Constantinople 2 times in 673-678 and 717-718. If they had succeed perhaps Southeastern Europe would have become Islamic long before the 14th century Ottoman conquest and there would have been more alien genes in this region, they failed to take the city thanks to the newly invented Greek Fire, that saved the Byzantine Empire from destruction many times contributing to its survival until the 1453 Turkish capture of Constantinople. Ironically, Greek Fire was invented by a Middle-Eastern scientist (Egyptian or Syrian, the sources are various) who fled the Muslim armies who came in his then predominantly Christian country and gave this technology to Byzantines.
Quote:
This, as well as the later immigration of Moriscos, has supposedly caused some Auvergnese to have a "Negroid" appearance. This observation of course must be taken with a grain of salt, since what constitutes a "Negroid" appearance varies from person to person, and since the Moriscos would not have largely been of sub-Saharan origin (although at least a small percentage must have been).
The sources I read tell Moriscos were mainly ethnic Spaniards converted to Islam, and then converted back to Christianity. As for the armies who invaded Iberia in 711, and then France, they were mostly ethnic Northwestern Africans (including Tariq Ibn Ziyad, Gibraltar Straits is named ater him), but there were also some Middle-Easterners and Black Africans.
By the way, I read the pages you posted about Sicily, it seemed very similar to the article of the Sicilian writter. As for the texts of 1940 and 1952, I am a bit suspicious about their credibility, at this time science was not as advanced as today, and the author used the same informations that are now seen as totally inaccurate by most scientists, by the way he even quoted earlier scientists of the 19th century. But who knows. What's funny is he mentioned Henry IV's invitation to the Moriscos, it doesn't surprise me because this king is seen as the most liberal of French history, he was a protestant who survived Saint-Barthelemy massacre and then converted to Catholicism to become king. He signed the "Edit de Nantes" that would allow all protestants to practice their faith, but his grandson Louis XIV canceled it and caused the secret exodus of about 200.000 French whose departure weakened France and enriched protestant countries.
Quote:
Here is a woman from the Auvergne. Unfortunately, it is from Wiki, but the costume seems correct. Some folks I showed the picture to say she looks a bit sub-Saharan:
The picture of the lady is not clear, but many French women look like her. Perhaps it is only a bad photography because I saw a lot of Eastern Europeans who had similar faces. However, when I was in the Southernmost part of France I saw many people who looked Northwestern African, there is even a French called Fabienne Carat who plays the role of an Algerian girl in a serial on tv, I always thought she was originally Algerian until I saw her name:
She originates from the city of Pau in the Southwest:
There was also a famous French actor who now died, Fernandel didn't have a typical French face:
Finally, Bruno Megret is a famous extreme rightist politician who is labeled as a racist by the authorities:
Quote:
This gentleman comes from Salerno, in southern Italy. I scanned this pic in from an old encyclopedia called "Lands and Peoples." He certainly doesn't look European in my eyes:
Yes, he looks special. As I told you, it is very common for Italians to look like North-Africans/Middle-Easterners, especially in the South (but I also saw many examples in the North). When I compare Italian Marco Materazzi (first pic) with Algerian Zinedine Zidane (they were shown together on the medias because of a clash during the 2006 World Cup) I can't see a big difference in their phenotypes.
I will post a few pics of people from the Italian peninsula (non islanders) who look like Maghrebis:
Those cute children are from Naples as the man you showed. They really remind me the typical children I see in Algeria.
Among famous Spaniards who look more Maghrebi than Northern European, there are:
Penelope Cruz and her sister
Enrique Iglesias
Isabel Pantoja
Jose Garcia (by the way, he played the role of a Maghrebi Jew in a French film a few years ago)
The Iberians, and especially the Portugesse have the highest Sub-Saharan admixture. This probably is related to the slave trade, and many of the Blacks were probably absorbed into the Portugesse people. As for the Southern Italians its probably came with the Moorish invaders, the Greeks and Persians both have known about Sub-Saharans, some of them were used as slaves, we can see from the paintings of the ancient Greeks their was a Sub-Saharan element in the population. Generaly South Europeans have more Sub-Sahran admixture than their Northern European counter parts who have more East Asian admixture. Finns have the highest Mongoloid admixture in Europe.
Actually, autosomal studies, according to DNAPrint, show that southern Europeans on average, including Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, and Greeks (and all associated islands) have about 5% or so sub-Saharan admixture. Some individuals have less, and others have more, of course. But the average is about 5%. mtDNA studies show similar sub-Saharan admixture results for Portugal, Spain, southern Italy, Sicily, and Sardinia. Generally, the results of mtDNA studies for these areas show anywhere from about 3% to nearly 15% L and M1 markers. Y-chromosome admixture results are lower for all these areas. There aren't a whole lot of mtDNA and Y-chromosome studies available on Greeks, but those that do exist show admixture (mtDNA lineage M1, Y lineage A and various ancient E3b descendants). HLA studies, as mentioned above, show relatedness between Greeks and sub-Saharans. The only Europeans to bear cystic fibrosis mutations typical of Black Africans are Greeks.
Sub-Saharans have had a presence in Italy (including the islands) for millennia, according to Africana, by Gates and Appiah. According to Frank Snowden, many Black Africans were present in Italy and Greece in ancient times. According to Insight Guide: Sicily, Black Africans were among the immigrants to Sicily during the Saracen rule.
Yes, indeed, southern Europeans generally do have higher levels of sub-Saharan admixture than northern Europeans, although the latter has this as well. As for East Asian admixture, Finns and some groups of Russians have relatively high levels. Other eastern Europeans, like Hungarians, Romanians, etc., also type with some East Asian admixture.
This is infact very intersting, the more South you the more the admixture is, well the more north you go its smaller, however for East Asian admixture the more you go East the more common it becomes. Probably do the Hunish and Mongol invasion which occured mostly in that area. Its also belived that the Lapps of Scandaniva were originaly of Mongoloid stock. They have around 30% North East Asian admixture.
Very intersting info about the Greeks, the Greeks were also ruled by the Arabs especially in areas such as Cyprus, Crete, while the Turks controlled all of the Balkans which brought both Mongoloid and Negroid strains. However the Negroid elements in the Greeks predates the Arabs and Turks. The Turks introduced the Mongoloid element though.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Sun 06 Apr 2008 15:32 Post subject:
I'm on my way out the door, but I wanted to say thanks for all the great pictures and maps, as always. Yes, I saw the game where Zidane headbutted Materazzi! I noticed their similarities as well. You are also correct about there being quite a few Northern Italians who also look somewhat North African. The craniologist/anthropologist Carleton Coon mentioned that dark types predominate even in Northern Italy. And I have seen many French, especially in the south, who look like the folks you posted.
Perhaps the time when the Peloponnese was under Arab control was for a number of years after 904, when, as J. A. Rogers says, Leon the African invaded Greece with 54 ships and 10,800 Africans?
I wasn't aware that Greek Fire was invented by a Middle Eastern. Thanks for the data.
As for the J. A. Rogers books, the weakest points of his books (and those I like least) are the descriptions of people (his own or those of the folks he was quoting) as being "Negroid." This means different things to different people. Some think that anyone with a prognathism is "Negroid." Others think anyone with darker skin is "Negroid." This is quite weak. His relying on the scientific data of the day is not surprising. Craniology, although not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, at least approached the subject in a scientific manner, and was more accurate than many other methods of determing origins of skeletons.
Of course, the concept of race has been demolished, but admirably, J. A. Rogers himself, in the preface of one of his books, doubts the biological reality of race as early as the 1940s, and this was almost unheard of at this time. He was quite a brilliant man. I don't see any reason to doubt the accuracy of the historical data he mentions, though (and this is what I like best about his works), like the French king's invitation of the Moriscos, the the taking of Italians and Greeks by Naploeon for his Black Brigades because of their similar color, the mentioning that Livy had said that the slaves brought to Sicily in the Middle Ages were of the purest African type, etc. Here and there one will find a minor historical blunder in his works, but he can be forgiven for this. He was a lone researcher, and self-published all his books. Heck, I've seen mistakes in encyclopedias, and they have many contributors and editors! In fact, in my World Book Encyclopedia of 1968, there is a clear mistake in the Crete article. It is mentioned that the Saracens captured Crete in 823 (so far so good), and that the Byzantines expelled the Saracens after 38 years, in 861. This is wrong. They weren't expelled until 961, giving them a total of 138 years!
Of course, you're right about 6% being small. My point was 6% means "a lot" of North-Africans entered Arabia in the past, which I didn't know. I didn't know Arabia's males liked to take wives from Northwestern Africa to such a big rate (big is a relative and ambiguous term of course).
Quote:
Their is very few people identifying as Libyans.
You mean there is very few Libyans identifying as Berbers. Arabs from Libya see themselves as Libyan Arabs.
Libyan is not a synonym of Berber as it was during Antiquity (Libya was the name ancient Greeks gave to the region of North-Africa West to Egypt also known as present-day Arab Maghreb), today it si only the name of a citizen of the modern country of Libya.
Quote:
Most of the Libyan Berbers tend to be Touregs a mixture of Berbers and Blacks.
Since Tuaregs' lands are located thousands of miles from Northern Maghreb and separated by the Sahara, it is rare the 2 populations have contact that is why I have never seen a Tuareg in person. I cannot tell how Tuaregs are exactly, I saw only pictures of them, some are totally Black, some look like Northern Maghrebis with a darker skin, and some look mixed Maghrebi/Sub-Saharan African.
This one is from an Algerian Tuareg father, I don't know whether his mother is a Tuareg or a Northern Maghrebi.
Quote:
Yes Algeria and Morocco are not Arabized to an extent as Eastern North Africa. Morocco and Algeria did not have waves of the Arab tribes settling in mass as what in Libyo-Tunisa
The more profound Arabisation in Tunisia and Libya doesn't imply that Tunisian and Libyan Arabs feel more Arab than Moroccan and Algerian Arabs. Let me explain. The only difference is in Tunisia and Libya there aren't large groups of people who speak Berber plus Arabic, thus they do not know a lot about the Berber roots of the area, but they're exactly the same society and are included in the same Arab-Islamic entity for centuries. However, Libya is a bit isolated from the Arab Maghreb, it shares a common history with it and is now included in the definition of Maghreb since the creation of the Union of Arab Maghreb in 1989, but Morocco-Algeria-Tunisia are definitely a unique entity in term of history, language, civilisation, and culture, they're almost identical.
Finally, as I said in an other thread, most of the members of the minority who still speak Berber dialects in Maghrebi states speak Arabic too and also see themselves as Arab, with the exception of the people of Kabylie in Algeria. They speak Arabic too but many of them refuse to be labeled as Arabs for some reasons, in contrast with Algerian Chaoui Berber speakers, who usually claim their Arabness for instance, the Algerian hero Boumediene was himself from a Berber-speaking family and was one of the greatest pan-Arab leader. The problem in most medias, especially Western, is they tend to create a very distinct cultural and ethnical difference bewteen Berbers and Maghrebi Arabs, while they identify as the same population. This is the reason why most people are disinformed and often think of 2 ethnicities living in the region, comparing it to the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey, although this situation is very different as Kurds have always been a separate population and have their own history, while Maghrebis whether they're Arabic-speaking or Berber/Arabic-speaking share the same history and are of the same stock.
The reason why Western medias often show this subjective view of reality, is there are several extremist and separatist Berberist groups who are in the West and create an intense disinforming anti-Arab propaganda that doesn't represent the Berber-speaking people of Maghreb. Such groups usually claim that Berbers reject Islam and feel it is an alien religion in their homeland, which of course is senseless.
Many extremist Lebanese groups do the same and tend to say in France that "most Lebanese hate Arabs and consider themselves only Phoenician Canaanites", they equal the language spoken in Lebanon to a unique tongue and claim it is not Arabic but Lebanese.
Personally, even as a speaker of the Maghrebi variety of Arabic, that is not completely understood in the Middle-East, I have absolutely no difficulty to understand Lebanese Arabic and I can't see any difference with Syrian and Palestinian dialects, I would even say the structure of Lebanese is almost the same as the Arabic my mother taught me besides the word are pronounced differently, which is the reason why I had no difficulty to communicate with Levantine Arabs after a few hours of adaptation. The same occurs in Germany, Northerners and Southerners (including Austrians) speak different dialects and can't always understand each other, besides when they speak standard German, the language of the medias and administration that isn't widely spread, it is the equivalent of classic Arabic.
It is sad that Western medias often let those people spread their false informations because millions of people in the West, who are already very poorely informed about the Arab World, will only be more disinformed. Everyone can tell their opinions and every political group has the right to express its ideas, but by letting a minority represent the majority journalists only disinform their own people. It is like a Middle-Eastern chanel that would popularise the fight of a very tiny group of Alsatians who want to be independent from France, showing those people as a major political power in the region and making Arab viewers think there is a an intense anti-French sentiment in the region of Alsace.
Quote:
However the U6 might be intorduced by Canary Islander Gunaches who are belived to be related to the Berbers, known as the Guanaches.
Native Canary Islanders were indeed a Berber-speaking pepple, and the whole population was exterminated and enslaved (including the kings) by the Portugese and the Spaniards, so it could be an explanation too. Not to mention the countless Spanish and Portugese incursions in Maghrebi states' coastal area starting in the 15th centuries (the most known incursion happened at the battle of the three kings in 1578), thousands of people were stolen from the coastal towns by furtive raids and enslaved in Europe, Maghrebis captured thousands of Southern Europeans too and sold them into slavery at the same time. The 16th/17th/18th centuries was a period of intense slavery between Southern Europe and Maghrebi countries, called "la course" in French. The ennemy ships had to enter the foreign territories and to leave it in a quick way to capture the bigger number of slaves before the armed forces come.
Quote:
Religouse intermarriages might have occured but at that time it was considered treasonus.
It depends, the Islamic civilisation of Iberia was open-minded, even alcohol was freely avaible in Muslim families. When the very religious Berber Almoravids arrived from North-Africa in the 11th century, they were very shocked and changed everything.
Quote:
As for the Persians and Kurds they don't like Arabs, they are completely different. Persians usually are taller, and hairer than Arabs, and often have slant eyes, which might indicate that they have Mongoloid admixture. While the Iraqis tend to look like transition of Gulf-Arabs and Persians. This probably do to the long Persian rule.
I can sometimes distinguish Arabs from Turks, Kurds, and Persians, but in most cases they seem to be the same in my eyes (I had many Turkish and Persian friends here in France, and there were often demonstrations of Kurds in favour of Ocalan in the streets). It is clear that Asian Arabs are genetically closer to those 3 populations than to Northwestern African Arabs, who still look identical to them too.
You probably have a more sophisticated method of analysis however, I didn't think about details. I don't remember whether Persians are taller (I knew one who was very short), but many Turks I knew were very hairy, and it occurs much less in the Arabs.
Quote:
The Iberians, and especially the Portugesse have the highest Sub-Saharan admixture. This probably is related to the slave trade, and many of the Blacks were probably absorbed into the Portugesse people. As for the Southern Italians its probably came with the Moorish invaders, the Greeks and Persians both have known about Sub-Saharans, some of them were used as slaves, we can see from the paintings of the ancient Greeks their was a Sub-Saharan element in the population. Generaly South Europeans have more Sub-Sahran admixture than their Northern European counter parts who have more East Asian admixture. Finns have the highest Mongoloid admixture in Europe.
Yes, it is probably due to all those events plus to the Carthaginian occupation, but also to the earlier events that occured in those regions when they were first settled as I told you earlier. By the way, some sources say the earliest people of Greece came from Africa and Western Asia and were then invaded and fused with Greek-speaking aliens. Some scholars suggest a part of the ancestors of Sardinian Italians came from Northwestern Africa. In addition, some believe Etruscans (an ancient Italic group) came from Asia Minor, modern-day Turkey. So since the core of those populations may be partially Middle-Eastern and Northwestern African, it would explain why many of them look like Middle-Easterners and Northwestern Africans, rather than the theory of Sub-Saharan slavery and the recent occupations.
Quote:
Yes Alot of South Europeans look Middle Easterners, some Neo-Nazis even mistake attack them for it, because they are little darker, however culturaly they are not part of Middle Eastern society, but European, much like us in way.
Of course, they are Christians and have a different way of life. However, in many regions of Southern Europe, like parts of Italy by example, their life style is very similar to Northwestern Africa in many ways: making siesta in the afternoon because of the intense heat (common in Spain too), being machistic to women (although it also happens in Northern Europe, it is more visible in Mediterranean countries), not to mention the similarities in cuisine like the use of olive oil. In addition, the wear of veil was very common in Southern Europe for centuries, although it tends to be less seen, it was a trait of Mediterranean culture long before Christian and then Islamic faiths came and made them religious requirements.
Of course those ressemblences do not make Northwestern Africa and Southern Europe close at all, but the fact is Northern Europeans do not seem to feel in the same European civilisation when they go to Southern Italy for instance.
Thats true, but never the less it was intersting to find this mtDNA in Arabia, yet its not found in the sourranding areas such as the Levant or Iraq.
That what excatly I meant , very few they are called the Naoufsa Berbers in Libya they live in a mountin by the same name. However most Libyans see themselves as Arabs. Yes excatly Libyan was interchangable with Berber but not anymore today Libyan means people from Libya. The Libyans and Tunisians also seem to have higher Arabian admixture than their neighbours, however their paternal lineages are still mostly of Berber origins. 80% of North African Arabs have the specific E3b2 Y-chromsome. Their some Arab ancestory on the maternal ancestory but its very small. Probably introduced during the Banu Hilal and Banu Suylman conquests who originaly came from Yemen and Nejid.
Yes ofcourse sometimes those nationalities can be over lapped in terms of looks, because of interaction and probably intermarriage. For example in Iraq their strong Persian bloodlines. Recent Y-DNA on Iraqis show that they are geneticaly closer to Iranians than to other Arabs. However their maternal ancestory is very different from the Iranians, and seems to be closer to the other Arab/Semitic populations. Although the base is still Arabian. This also might explain they look like transition between Gulf Arabs and Iranians. After all Iraq is buffer zone between Arabia and Iran. Generaly speaking Persians are taller than Arabs, but some are very short, and the same with the Arabs. Yes Turks and Iranians tend to be more hairy than Arabs, although some Turks are not hairy do to the Mongol influnces in their population.
All Arabic dailects are very close, however I can not understand the Maghrabi dailect because its probably influnced by Tamazight, and French it compeletly different from the Levant and Gulf Arab dailects. The Levant and Gulf Arab dailects are mostly purely Arabian.
I know that groups in the West such as the extermist Berber groups and some of the Lebanese factions. The Berber groups that claim to reject Islam are joke, since I know many Berbers are proud to be Muslims and even very devout, so it is seneless. They have seen Islam intertwine with their culture. I never knew the Chuais prefer Arabization is their any reasons for it?
I heard that Moroccan Berbers were mo As for the Lebanese factions its mostly of the Christian Lebanes who don't want to identifay as Arabs but as Cannanites/Phonicieans, and they claim to speak Lebanese. The Lebanese is Arabic but with some French influnces. The French put the theory that the Maronites decent from the Phonicieans, however recent DNA testing proofs that the Maronites are collection of ethinc groups that came to Lebanon. About 25% of them have Western European Y-DNA R1b which might have been brought to Lebanon probably during the Crusades. Lebanese DNA shows they are very close to Yemenis on the paternal line, but on the maternal line they are closer to Palestinians.
I agree its sad that the Western Media does support the false information presented to us.
Yes some European groups are related to North West Africans and Middle Easterners since some of them had origins their, which is intersting. DNA has shown that Erucstrcans are closer to people of Turkey than modern Italians, this also shows the majorty of Turks are Turkified people, since the original Turks were Mongoloid.
Yes the original people of the Canary Islands were of Berber origins, sadly they got enslaved, and killed, its was brutal genicode that occured by the Spaniards in fact it was the first. The men were killed and women were taken as it seems, as the Gunache maternal lineages survives in modern day Canary Islanders who are mixture of Iberian and Berber roots today. Yes the Babary Slave trade, also brought a large number of Europeans into North Africa. Some even went to Iceland to bring captured slaves. This brought also the U.S into the battle with the Babary states. Very intersting part of history.
Yes the Touregs are very intersting people, the guy looks typical North African, but not much of how the modern day Toureg looks like. Its intersting to see how much they vary from phenotype to phenotype. They are one of the Berber tribes that did not get Arabized, they even kept the Berber script known as Tingifa. I heard that some of the Touregs have kept their original Berber looks, around Central Algeria.
Yes, indeed. One of the maps you kindly posted seems to show that the Peloponnese Peninsula was also under Arab rule. Perhaps raids occured.
Yes in red in the map, I had not noticed it, thanks. I do not know whether there were raids against Peloponese but Arab armies have besieged Constantinople 2 times in 673-678 and 717-718. If they had succeed perhaps Southeastern Europe would have become Islamic long before the 14th century Ottoman conquest and there would have been more alien genes in this region, they failed to take the city thanks to the newly invented Greek Fire, that saved the Byzantine Empire from destruction many times contributing to its survival until the 1453 Turkish capture of Constantinople. Ironically, Greek Fire was invented by a Middle-Eastern scientist (Egyptian or Syrian, the sources are various) who fled the Muslim armies who came in his then predominantly Christian country and gave this technology to Byzantines.
Quote:
This, as well as the later immigration of Moriscos, has supposedly caused some Auvergnese to have a "Negroid" appearance. This observation of course must be taken with a grain of salt, since what constitutes a "Negroid" appearance varies from person to person, and since the Moriscos would not have largely been of sub-Saharan origin (although at least a small percentage must have been).
The sources I read tell Moriscos were mainly ethnic Spaniards converted to Islam, and then converted back to Christianity. As for the armies who invaded Iberia in 711, and then France, they were mostly ethnic Northwestern Africans (including Tariq Ibn Ziyad, Gibraltar Straits is named ater him), but there were also some Middle-Easterners and Black Africans.
By the way, I read the pages you posted about Sicily, it seemed very similar to the article of the Sicilian writter. As for the texts of 1940 and 1952, I am a bit suspicious about their credibility, at this time science was not as advanced as today, and the author used the same informations that are now seen as totally inaccurate by most scientists, by the way he even quoted earlier scientists of the 19th century. But who knows. What's funny is he mentioned Henry IV's invitation to the Moriscos, it doesn't surprise me because this king is seen as the most liberal of French history, he was a protestant who survived Saint-Barthelemy massacre and then converted to Catholicism to become king. He signed the "Edit de Nantes" that would allow all protestants to practice their faith, but his grandson Louis XIV canceled it and caused the secret exodus of about 200.000 French whose departure weakened France and enriched protestant countries.
Quote:
Here is a woman from the Auvergne. Unfortunately, it is from Wiki, but the costume seems correct. Some folks I showed the picture to say she looks a bit sub-Saharan:
The picture of the lady is not clear, but many French women look like her. Perhaps it is only a bad photography because I saw a lot of Eastern Europeans who had similar faces. However, when I was in the Southernmost part of France I saw many people who looked Northwestern African, there is even a French called Fabienne Carat who plays the role of an Algerian girl in a serial on tv, I always thought she was originally Algerian until I saw her name:
She originates from the city of Pau in the Southwest:
There was also a famous French actor who now died, Fernandel didn't have a typical French face:
Finally, Bruno Megret is a famous extreme rightist politician who is labeled as a racist by the authorities:
Quote:
This gentleman comes from Salerno, in southern Italy. I scanned this pic in from an old encyclopedia called "Lands and Peoples." He certainly doesn't look European in my eyes:
Yes, he looks special. As I told you, it is very common for Italians to look like North-Africans/Middle-Easterners, especially in the South (but I also saw many examples in the North). When I compare Italian Marco Materazzi (first pic) with Algerian Zinedine Zidane (they were shown together on the medias because of a clash during the 2006 World Cup) I can't see a big difference in their phenotypes.
I will post a few pics of people from the Italian peninsula (non islanders) who look like Maghrebis:
Those cute children are from Naples as the man you showed. They really remind me the typical children I see in Algeria.
Among famous Spaniards who look more Maghrebi than Northern European, there are:
Penelope Cruz and her sister
Enrique Iglesias
Isabel Pantoja
Jose Garcia (by the way, he played the role of a Maghrebi Jew in a French film a few years ago)
This means alot of North Africans can pass as local Spaniards and some French. Thus its not easy racialy profling them, maybe unless they have some siginicant sub-Saharan admixture, or they look Bedouins which some North Africans can look like.
The Arabs raided all of Italy, Corsica, Southern France, Sardina, and even Bulgaria. The Arabs even sacked Rome. Southern mainland Italian Pensiula was ruled by the Arabs and the same with Sicily, Sardnia, and Corsia. However the Arabs were unsuccessful in capturing Greece of Bulgaria, to do to Greek Fire. Greek Fire was in fact invented by Syrians but the Greeks adopted, this made the Arabs retreated, until the Turkic Ottomans conquered the region and the whole Balkan area. Which did bring with it a Mongol influnce to the regions.
The Moriscos are infact of mixed race of Moor-Spaniards. Their was Spaniard converts among them, however most of them were alien from Spain. The Moors were of both Arab-Berber ancestory with some Sub-Saharan admixture, who mixed with the converted Muslim Spainards.
Perhaps the time when the Peloponnese was under Arab control was for a number of years after 904, when, as J. A. Rogers says, Leon the African invaded Greece with 54 ships and 10,800 Africans?
Unfortunately, I cannot help about this... I never heard about an Arab presence in this area, the map may be inaccurate.
Quote:
I wasn't aware that Greek Fire was invented by a Middle Eastern. Thanks for the data
You're welcome, here is the article of Encarta:
Greek Fire
A gelatinous, incendiary mixture, used in warfare before gunpowder was invented. Flammable liquids had long been in use, but it was not until the 7th century that Greek fire was invented, possibly by Callinicus, an Egyptian architect who had fled from Syria during the Muslim invasions. Greek fire was an effective weapon, especially when used against ships at sea. The substance apparently ignited spontaneously, and could not be extinguished by water. In 673 Greek fire was used by the Byzantine Empire to repel an Arab fleet attacking Constantinople; the Byzantine Empire continued to use Greek fire in combat until the empire's fall in 1453.
The formula of Greek fire was closely guarded as a state secret for many centuries by the Byzantine Empire. The exact composition of Greek fire is still disputed, but it was probably composed of a mixture of flammable materials such as sulphur and pitch in a petroleum base. This jelly-like mixture was sprayed on the enemy from tubes through which it was forced under pressure by pumps.
I don't see any reason to doubt the accuracy of the historical data he mentions
My point is at this time historians were much less serious and taught very strange things, for instance French history books taught pupils that there were 2 races in Maghreb, Arab and Berber, and that Berbers were lighter than Arabs and descended from the Vandals, things like this. At this time of colonial domination, historians were also often used to make propaganda and spread lies or rumours, the idea that Berbers are European and are occupied by alien Arabs came from the Middle-East was a good tool to divide and rule.
I don't know the degree of seriousness we can give to former historians who didn't possess our high technology and advanced methods of archeology, perhaps I am just too judgmental, but I see them as Roman, ancient Greek, or ancient Arab historians.
Quote:
Heck, I've seen mistakes in encyclopedias, and they have many contributors and editors! In fact, in my World Book Encyclopedia of 1968, there is a clear mistake in the Crete article.
Yes, unfortunately even 2008 Encyclopaedias have terrible mistakes sometimes, I have an example about the Larousse Encyclopaedia, which is considered prestigious and sophisticated. It tells Sephardic Jews (those from Iberia and Maghreb) are a majority since Holocaust, while Ashkenazi Jews (those from Europe and their descendents in the New World) still make up 85% of the world Jewish community.
I concluded that since even professionals make errors, I should never trust things like wikipedia.
Quote:
It is mentioned that the Saracens captured Crete in 823 (so far so good), and that the Byzantines expelled the Saracens after 38 years, in 861. This is wrong. They weren't expelled until 961, giving them a total of 138 years!
The map I previously posted says it started in 832, Encarta says 826-961. I found a non verified source that tells it lasted from 824 to 961, This unverified source also tells it was Arabs from Spain who captured Crete, perhaps their background was Northwestern African.
Anyway, either it is a big mistake, or perhaps they were kicked out for a short period and then took back the island. For example, Turks briefly lost the peninsula of the Peloponnese to Venice after their defeat in a war of the end of the 17th century, and then took it back in the early 18th century after a victorious invasion against Venice, which was stopped by Austria.
It is shown on this map of 1705 A.D (Morea is the former name of Peloponnese)
Last edited by sirius2008 on Sun 06 Apr 2008 19:24; edited 3 times in total
This also might explain they look like transition between Gulf Arabs and Iranians.
I really have no clue about their exact genetical composition besides that they're mainly descendents of the Assyro-Babylonians and their predecessors, and of the Sumerians for Southern Iraqis. As for phenotype, as I told you we probably have a different method to analyse them.
My personal opinion is Iraqis are almost the same as Levantine Arabs (except ethnic Jordanians) in term of physical apparence while all people of the Arabian peninsula plus Jordan have a specific look, a darker skin I mean. In the end, those differences still seem minor and all those populations have basically the same features to me.
Quote:
All Arabic dailects are very close
however I can not understand the Maghrabi dailect because its probably influnced by Tamazight, and French it compeletly different from the Levant and Gulf Arab dailects.
Indeed, they're all derived from classic Arabic. The areas of intelligibility are divided in 2 parts I think, the Arab Middle-East (except Iraq) and Arab Maghreb (although Libya and Mauritania are a bit different). Maghrebis and Middle-East Arabs can still communicate by using standard Arabic or classic Arabic.
It is noy only a matter of foreign influence, the pronounciation and other factors make it harder to understand too. I will explain.
While classic Arabic uses the sound "a" for the first person singular at the present tense (for instance "I go" is "aroH)", many Middle-East countries use the "b" sound (baroH) or even "H" and "h" for Egyptians (haroH, HaroH).
In contrast, Maghrebis use the sound "n" (nroH), which is a double problem of comprehension because Middle-Easterners use the "n" only for the fisrt person plural, Maghrebis use the "n" for the first person plural too but they always add the suffix "ou" as in clasic Arabic to mark the difference, while Middle-Easterners don't: Maghrebi Arabic for "we go" is "nroHou", Middle-Eastern Arabic is "nroH".
An other difference in pronounciations is the second person plural at the present tense. While a Middle-Easterner would follow the original pronounciation Maghrebis often make a little inversion. Example: "You know" is "ta3arfou" in Maghrebi Arabic while it is "ta3rafou" in Middle-Eastern Arabic. "You strike", " taDordbou", "taDrobou". I can't cite all verbs but you understood the logic.
There are many other differences like this, Maghrebis always mark the "q" sound (some make it g as many non-Egyptian Middle-Eastern Arabs) while Egyptians do not have the "q" sound, it is mute. So sometimes it is not understandable: "read" would be a'ra in Egyptian while it would be aqra in Maghrebi Arabic, Egyptians would say a'3ad' for aq3ad, and I believe the only word thay have that inludes the sound "q" is Quran.
So lets summarise, "I say" is "aqol", so an Egyptian would say "Ha'ol" or "ha'ol" or "ba'ol", it would be 2 differences that would not be understood by Maghrebis in a first conversation.
Basically, it is the same verbs and the same language, and when you understand the local pronouciation it is easy to understand the phrases then.
Sorry for those long explanations, I hope they helped you to understand more since I have a big experience with talking to Middle-Eastern Arabs in Arabic.
As for Maghrebi Arabic's foreign influences, it is especially influenced by French due to the recent colonisation actually. However, it is only an influence of vocabulary, which means the structure of the language is still the same besides the slight differences I told above, Lebanese people use many French words such as the verb "monter" ("atla3" in Maghrebi Arabic) but they are still understood by their neighboors because it is only vocabulary, like U.S and U.K English.
By the way, the people from the mountainous Arabic-speaking area I went to in Algeria seem to have retained much more of the original Arabic vocabulary than people of the coastal cities where most of the million French settlers lived.
Quote:
The Levant and Gulf Arab dailects are mostly purely Arabian.
It is true that Arabian and Levantine Arabic seem to be the closest to classic Arabic, but don't you forget Egyptian? The most easy dialect to understand to Maghrebis is Egyptian Arabic, it seems much easier. It is also the way to pronounce words that seems soft and easy, unlike Moroccan Arabic (and thus, Western Algerian Arabic) for instance that has the reputation to be very inaudible, the same for French of Canada, it is almost identical to standard French but the pronounciation is so terrible that we don't always understand it. Personally, I understand much more the songs of Egyptian singers than those of Morocco and Western Algeria like Cheb Khaled, whose texts are totally unintelligible to me. But when he doesn't sing, it is easy for me to understand him.
As for Iraqi, it is a bit complicated to me and I usually ask Iraqis to speak Levantine or Egyptian Arabic to understand them because it seems different. For example they always use the suffix "aj" for the "ak" sound (Issmak - Issmaj).
I usually speak a personal version of Arabic that is a mixture of Maghrebi Arabic and classic Arabic, I baned all French words from my Arabic because it sounds unsophisticated, not refined, and not classy to make such a mixture, and I want to be understood from Middle-Eastern Arabs, which I managed. It is ironical but when I talk to Maghrebis they always think I am Middle-Eastern.
Quote:
Yes the Touregs are very intersting people, the guy looks typical North African, but not much of how the modern day Toureg looks like. Its intersting to see how much they vary from phenotype to phenotype.
Indeed he looks like a typical Northern Maghrebi, besides his skin tone is much darker. It is exactly what I said above, Saharan Maghrebis usually have the same features as Northerners besides skin colour. But Tuaregs are not typical Saharan Algerians, as you said they're a mixture and they are very various, I saw many who looked like him and many who were 100% Black, while a lot were mixed. Tuaregs are really an exception because they were not a part of historical Algeria before the French conquered them in the early 20th century and added their territiory to Algeria, that historically included only the Northern region (coastal plains, Atlas mountains, high plateaux) plus a few neighbooring Saharan areas below the Saharan Atlas range.
Quote:
They are one of the Berber tribes that did not get Arabized,
All the people of the region were Arabised and Islamised, but they were not all Arabised at the same degree. Tuaregs were Arabised in the sense they speak Arabic, the Tuaregs I knew didn't reject the Arab label by the way. The Tuareg man I showed you above is a French politician who calls himself an Arab in the medias.
Keep in mind that calling yourself an Arab in Maghreb doesn't imply to be a person from Arabia, the region has an Arab history for 14 centuries. Westerners also always called the inhabitants of the region Arabs for centuries including during the conquest of Algeria until they learnt about the linguistic differences and used it to divide.
Quote:
they even kept the Berber script known as Tingifa. I heard that some of the Touregs have kept their original Berber looks, around Central Algeria.
Yes they have very traditional clothes and are different, they ressemble the cute rural Yemenis I saw on a documentary who live in the past and didn't adopt "modernity". They have retained original Berber scripts, indeed, some of them can be seen in Northern Algeria too, in Kabylie:
Quote:
I heard that Moroccan Berbers were mo
I am sorry I did not understand, you probably forgot to complete this phrase.
Quote:
this also shows the majorty of Turks are Turkified people, since the original Turks were Mongoloid.
Yes, genetic analyses said Anatolian Turks are ethnic Anatolians and descend from the ancient Indo-European speaking populations of the area: Hittites, Lydians, Phrygians, and so on. Their ancestors only adopted the Turkish language and identity, their genome shows minor Central Asian influence.
However, original Turks, who still inhabit Central Asia, were not Mongoloid but Turkic. They were close to Mongols in history and have higher Mongoloid admixtures than other ethnic groups.
Quote:
The Moriscos are infact of mixed race of Moor-Spaniards. Their was Spaniard converts among them, however most of them were alien from Spain. The Moors were of both Arab-Berber ancestory with some Sub-Saharan admixture, who mixed with the converted Muslim Spainards.
May I ask where you have found your informations? We should make a comparison. I read several sources that tell they were mainly Spaniards, there were hundreds of thousands in the 1600s and it doesn't count the hundreds of thousands who died or fled in 1492. Just like Arab Maghrebis don't descend from allien Arabs, Moriscos are told to not descend from foreigners, but perhaps your sources tell differently.
By the way, a group of Spanish politicians recently proposed a law to grant Spanish citizenship to their descendents, it concerns many people in Northwestern Africa.
Quote:
Yes the original people of the Canary Islands were of Berber origins, sadly they got enslaved, and killed, its was brutal genicode that occured by the Spaniards in fact it was the first. The men were killed and women were taken as it seems, as the Gunache maternal lineages survives in modern day Canary Islanders who are mixture of Iberian and Berber roots today
.
I guess Canarians are mainly descended of alien Spaniards since the population is said to have been exctinct, I don't know the degree of native blood Canarians have. Native Canarians were a Northwestern African Berber group that were totally isolated from the North-African mainland and were not as civilised, they were not advanced in weaponry and were easily conquered although they resisted. Their religion was still Pagan.
Well, at this time (17th century) it was standard to massacre populations, Muslims did the same in the Ottoman Empire, it was religious wars. I don't think it was the Spaniards who committed the first genocide in history, remember the Crusades, the mainly French army committed the genocide of the entire Muslim-Jewish population of Jerusalem in 1099 and many massacres followed causing the deaths of hundreds of thousands.
Romans (the ancestors of Italians) were genocidal too, in particular in Palestine and in Northwestern Africa. When they captured the city of Carthage they have slayed the entire population to make sure this powerful empire (Carthage was the richest city of the world and controlled the whole Western Mediterranea) never raises back because it was the biggest threat and ennemy to their country and Carthage had already raised back after its previous defeats and sweared to destroy Roma. There were many Berber revolts in Roman Northwestern Africa and they were always followed by brutal repressions.
By the way, after the long European rule (Roman, Vandal, Byzantine) in Maghrebi lands that ended with the arrival of Muslim troops in the region, Northwestern African troops have also committed many massacres against the Iberian population, although it was not what we call a genocide and the slaughter of a whole nation. This occured exclusively after the 11th century Almoravid conquest of Muslim Iberia, Christians and Jews lost their statut and many were persecuted.
I really think that many other ethnic groups (including Christians and Muslims) mass massacred others long before Spain ever became a state, it is only an attempt of the Spanish author to emphase the act that Spain committed.
Quote:
Yes the Babary Slave trade, also brought a large number of Europeans into North Africa. Some even went to Iceland to bring captured slaves. This brought also the U.S into the battle with the Babary states. Very intersting part of history.
Well, The U.S.A didn't war because of slavery, it was itself enslaving millions Africans. Both of the Barbary Wars began after Libya (in the first war) and Algeria (in the second war) declared war on the U.S.A because it refused to accept to pay a higher tribute for the protection of its ships. Northwestern African leaders wanted to force Americans to give more money by warring them.
It is very ironical because the first countries that have recognised the United States in the 18th century were also the first that warred them. The USA has defeated Libya in the First Barbary War, and Ageria in the second with the final intervention of the U.K. It was not real wars but minor naval battles that resulted to the end of the tribute Americans had to pay to Maghrebi countries to avoid that their ships got attacked by local pirates who controlled Western Mediterranea for centuries until the European navies became superior in the early 19th century. Libya and Algeria, which were then tiny countries in term of population, thought the USA was only a very minor power in Mediterranea because it was distant. History told they were not easy to defeat, they quickly became a very strong power because their population and thus their economy dramatically grew up years after years thanks to the intense European immigration. When the Barbary Wars started the U.S had almost no navy to put in the battle, and it has quickly built a fleet capable to fight and defy the then invincible Barbary States as we call them in the West. Since you're interested I will tell you about the history of the region.
After those wars in 1801-05 and in 1812-16 , Europeans understood how weakened those countries were, and they felt they should defeat them before they become strong again. It was the beginning of the Western colonisation in this region that had been able to defend itself successfully from European powers for centuries despite its demographic weakness compared to the much larger European countries (France alone was 33 millions when it invaded Algeria's three millions of people).
During the European Congress of Vienna of 1815, European powers discussed about the need to eliminate the Algerian threat, Napoleon had already drawn plans to invade it in 1808 and they were later used. Colonisation of Arab countries began there, Algeria was slowly conquered by France in the decades following the 1830 capture of Algiers and Oran, Tunisia and Egypt were conquered in 1881 respectively by France and the U.K.
Libya, which was then directly ruled by the Turks as a result of the French invasion of Algeria that had declared itself a vassal country of the Ottoman Empire to get its protection since the 16th century, began to be conquered by Italy in 1911.
Morocco was defeated by both France and Spain in various wars of the 19th centuries, which caused the loss of some little Northern territories and of the big saharan area in the South. France and Spain conquered its historical centre in the North in the early 20th century, the Franco-Spanish protectorate on the Northern region officially began in 1912 and ended with the independence of 1956 after France badly needed to mobolise all of its troops in the then revolting Algeria in order to protect its citizens and to save this territory it considered to be a part of France. Ifni and the remaining Southern territories were taken back from Spain after Moroccan attacks and pressures in the following decades, but today there are still 2 cities and 5 other territories (islands and a tiny peninsula) that are administrated by Spain and claimed by Morocco. Tunisia also became independent in 1956, Libya was taken from Italy by the victorious Allies after WWII and was granted independence in 1951. Algeria became independent in 1962 after the war that started in 1954.
Quote:
This is infact very intersting, the more South you the more the admixture is, well the more north you go its smaller, however for East Asian admixture the more you go East the more common it becomes.
The explanation is Southern Europe is the closest European region to the Arab World, Spain is fourteen kilometres and Italy is about 140 km. As for Eastern Europe, it is directly linked to Asia, Europe and Asia are the same landmass, Europe as a continent is an arbitrary concept with no geographical basis but rather a cultural and ethnical entity that was and still is distinct in history.
Quote:
As for the Lebanese factions its mostly of the Christian Lebanes who don't want to identifay as Arabs but as Cannanites/Phonicieans, and they claim to speak Lebanese.
Yes, that is true, it is mostly Christian Lebanese who form this group. By the way there is no contradiction with being Arab, a citizen of an Arab country who talks Arabic and who is of Arabic culture, and claiming an earlier heritage (Canaanite Phoenicians' heritage). In France there are a lot of ethnic groups who have earlier heritages and who used to not be French, like people of Brittany or Alsatians in my region (a former German land), they are French and are proud of their original background, which is the same as almost all French people by the way if you trace back to the Celtic period before later entities evolved. The same is true for Lebanese, they are the same population as Arabia's people in term of Semitic ancestry, not to mention the theories that tell ancient Semites were immigrants from Arabia.
Speaking of Christian Arabs, all Palestinian, Syrian, and Jordanian Christians I met identify as 100% Arab. However, many Egyptian, Iraqi, and Lebanese Christians reject this label. It is really a fact I noticed, they tell me they're not Arab but they aknowledge that they're the same civilisation, and they seem to be culturally identical to Arabs to me, so it is really confusing, it is not like a French and a French-speaking Belgian, who don't feel they're the same people although they have similarities. By the way, Jordan was always an Arabic-speaking country in history so it explains why its Christians identify as Arabs, but Palestine and Western Syria (where the core of the Syrian population lives) had the same statut as Lebanon and were Aramaic speaking and under foreign Byzantine rule for centuries before Muslim armies captured those lands and Islamised them, so I wonder why Palestinian and Syrian Christians are never involved in the concept of rejecting Arab identity. It may be because of colonial propaganda, the U.K also tried to divide Muslim and Coptic Egyptians.
My former teacher of Arabic in France was a Christian Jordanian and wore a necklace with a very big Christian cross, she seemed to be extremely nationalistic and proud of her Arab heritage, I discovered Oum Kalthoum and Gamal Abdel Nasser in her classroom.
Few people know it in the West but Christianity was present in Arab lands long before Islam, and long before it was ever present in the West. Christianity actually originates from Palestine and early Christians were the ancestors of today Arabs in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Northern Arabia. This religion then spread into Europe via Greece, and later into the New World and Sub-Saharan Africa after European colonisation.
Quote:
The Lebanese is Arabic but with some French influnces. The French put the theory that the Maronites decent from the Phonicieans, however recent DNA testing proofs that the Maronites are collection of ethinc groups that came to Lebanon. About 25% of them have Western European Y-DNA R1b which might have been brought to Lebanon probably during the Crusades. Lebanese DNA shows they are very close to Yemenis on the paternal line, but on the maternal line they are closer to Palestinians.
Well, all Lebanese descend from Canaanite Phoenicians, not only the Maronites. There are also Muslims, and non-Maronite Catholic Christian, such as the members of the Greek Orthodox church or Protestants. Christian Lebanese look the same as all other Arabs. Not all Christian Lebanese are hostile to Arabs, and even those who are, are not really hostile but only have an identity crises that wouldn't change the fact they're culturally identical to those they want to be separated from. The founder of the Arab American Institute is a Catholic Christian Maronite of Lebanese ancestry by the way:
French colonialists' goal was to divide and rule, although they had a lot of minorities who were much more different from other French than Maronites from Muslim Lebanese people, they used this method as all invaders always do in the territory of the ennemy. Muslims used this tactic to maintain in Iberia for centuries because the Northern Christian states were rivals and fought each other, Muslims used it too when they invaded today France, they have allied to the Southern rulers against the Franks.
In Malta, whose language is an Arabic dialect evolved from Maghrebi Arabic (although it is totally unintellegible today because of centuries of changes and Italian/English contributions), nationalists of the 19th century gave Maltese a Phoenician origin because Arabic is seen as a symbol of Islamic identity.
As for Lebanese Arabic, it doesn't have much more French than Egyptian Arabic has English (and French, such as "piscine" for waterpool for instance). By the way, Northwestern Africans gave hundreds of Arab words to the French language. For example, a familiar word to say doctor in French is "toubib", in Maghrebi Arabic it is "Tabeeb" (the word "daktour" is also used by Maghrebi Arabs but it rather came from Greek).
As for Spanish, it has more than 100.000 words from Maghrebi Arabic, its grammary is also influenced. Thousands of names of major towns and sites such as Madrid have Middle-Eastern roots. The name Spain itself is Semitic.
Quote:
I never knew the Chuais prefer Arabization is their any reasons for it?
There is no specific reason, they usually say they're Arab because to them it is a synonym of "Maghrebi" or of "Algerian". The Berber-speaking groups are not all the same, they're not united under a Berber nation. As for Moroccan Berbers most of them (most of those I knew, if not all) would not reject the Arab label because Arab is like a synonym of Moroccan to them, and they're identitcal to Moroccan Arabs all ways so it sounds senseless to make a distinction that doesn't exist in reality. While some of them reject the Arab label for the same reasons as Maronites I told above, Chaouis are different and do not have any feeling of Berber nationalism.
It is interesting to note that just like Lebanon, such identity issues were created by French colonialism, which realised a policy of division and created many differences between those groups who never had such debates before. Colonial policy told that Berbers were very intelligent and smart while Arabs were lazy and ignorant. However, during the Algerian War of Liberation there were no differences between those groups and they fought together, the fight started in Aures Mountains by the way, the homeland of the Chaouis, and Kabylie mountains were also a big centre of resistance.
There is also an other factor that caused Arab nationalism in a higher way than in neighbooring countries, which were only "protectorates" under French rule and not declared French disctricts by France as Algeria. Since in 1962 the country was totally Frenchified in term of language, architecture, administration, society, and so on (the only signs of Arabic identity were the natives, their language and culture), the politicians of independent Algeria wanted to symbolise the total destruction of any French symbol and it was also made through a higher claim that Algerians are Arab people and Algeria is an Arab land, and not French people in a French land as the colonial authorities imposed in their official laws and in their anti-Arab propaganda. That explains the famous speech of the first Algerian president, Ahmed Ben Bella: "We are Arabs, Arabs, Arabs". He was himself originally from a Berber-speaking family of Morocco, he was born in Algeria though. Arabic was also intensely imposed in schools over Berber dialects to give it its pre-colonial statut, in the 1930s French deputies declared Arabic to be a foreign language in Algeria, whose unique language was declared to be French as an other attempt to annihilate the original identity of the country. Finally, the experience of occupation also made people feel even more Arab in the sense the occupiers constantly told Algerians "True Algerians are not Arabs", or "Arabs [including Berber-speaking people who were seen as Arabs too] invaded Algeria in the 7th century and stole it from Christians, they need to go back to Arabia and leave the French natives in their legitimate land", etc.
All this aroggance and denial of history contributed to make people express their Arabism in an ostentatious way, it also led to the expulsion of almost 100% of the French settlers (who were born there and considered it as their homeland) after the victory of 1962 because of their initial intention to maintain Algeria under Western rule before to lose the war.
This is true in many other nations, particularily in France. After it was freed from Nazi Germany that occupied and pillaged the country from 1940 to 1945, the natives felt so angry and extremely anti-Germans. They wanted to "clean" France from anything that would remind the 4 years occupation (5 years in Alsace) and the humiliation of those who had literally enslaved them and caused the deaths of thousands of them. Hence, the German language that was imposed in the streets and that was to replace French, was seen as a disgusting tongue that had to disappear, the German flags and logos were also removed from the country.
Algeria felt the same about France, all the cities, streets, and places including those that were renamed after French officers who had conquered the country, were Arabised and renamed after Algerian heroes. However while Arabic officially became the principal and first language of the country, French was not totally removed and is still important among educated people. At this time of Maghrebi solidarity, there was even a project of fusion between the 3 countries of Maghreb to form one unique state, which failed because of rivalry between the leaders, there was even a brief war between Morocco and Algeria in 1963, Morocco attempted to capture the desertic Southwestern Algeria, that was once its lands before France had conquered it and incorporated it into its Algerian colony, like it did with the lands of the Tuaregs. Algeria considered that it had expelled the French from this land and thus had a legal right to own it, while Morocco mentioned its historical presence there before the French colonisation (Algeria never included this part of its modern territory before French colonisation). Algeria won the war and kept this piece of desert, this event caused the Algerian support of the Polisario movement in Western Sahara against Morocco.
Quote:
The Berber groups that claim to reject Islam are joke, since I know many Berbers are proud to be Muslims and even very devout, so it is seneless.
They have seen Islam intertwine with their culture.
Those extremist groups, which are a very tiny minority like neo-nazis among Westerners, are also extremely hostile to Arabism not only to Islam, many also like to identify themselves with Westerners or to invent European origins to Maghrebis, they also insist about the Christian past of the region before the arrival of Islam in the 600s.
Well, It is not only "many Berbers" who are proud Muslims, trust me it is really the vast majority like in Saudi Arabia. As for myself, I am not particularily religious and prefer to pride myself through my ethnic background rather than through religious ideas, but I am also proud of the Islamic civiliation for its scientific achievements just like non-religious French Christians or even atheist French who feel very proud of their Christian heritage because it represents a rich history and civilisation before to be religious beliefs.
Northwestern Africans have a very different interpretation of Islam however, all Islamic and Christian regions of the world seem to have theirs, Arab Maghreb is of Sunni rite but it predominantly follows the Maliki jurisprudence. For instance, wearing a veil for women is not considered as a total religious requirement (except by some local theologists), hence women can freely choose to wear it or not without feeling they violate their religion, which I think is not the same in KSA. Today, about half Algerian women wear a veil. Early Christians also wore a veil, and Arab Christians still do, even in France, older Iraqi Christians were shown with a veil on tv for Esther, which is rare because the medias often insist that it is only Islamic. But today in Europe only Orthodox Christians from Eastern Europe follow this rule, same for the beard of the clerics. Very religious Jews also wear a veil and Rabbis have a beard too, especially fanatical religious Jewish settlers. Apparently, whether they are Jewish or Muslims, fanatics like this look of wearing a beard.
Oh and, there is also a funny thing. All the sea food is totally Halal (allowed) in Maghreb, while in your country I guess it is seen as a big sin to eat crustaceans, Jews follow this rule too and feel it is as sick as eating pig meat (I am a vegatarian and all meat or sea food disgust me anyway).
Quote:
This means alot of North Africans can pass as local Spaniards and some French. Thus its not easy racialy profling them, maybe unless they have some siginicant sub-Saharan admixture, or they look Bedouins which some North Africans can look like.
It is usually extremely easy to distinguish Northwestern Africans from the natives, because most native French look European, and most Northwestern African look Maghrebi (many Moroccans even look partly Sub-Saharan). Not only because of their physical features but also because they have a special culture that includes a part of their original Arab background even if their culture is mostly Western. Hence, even a blue eyed and blonde Algerian can be easily dinstinguished from a local ethnic French by talking to him/her. As for those who are foreigners who recently moved and were not born here, their Arabic accent is also a factor that immediately identifies them.
Well, any European born Northwestern African who tells he/she is Portugese, Spanish, or Italian, will be believed with no difficulty, because although not all Southern Europeans look non-European, they're stereotyped as having a "Latin" look. As for myself, people think I am Italian sometimes, some of my siblings are thought to be native French by some people.
However, unless to really look European, it is not possible for a Northwestern African to pass as a French, unless if he/she pretends to be from the South. But even the South is mainly White looking, although many people do not look White as I showed.
In Southern European countries it is different because it is not "many" or "a few" who look non-White, it is a very large part of the population, and in Greece it may be the majority.
Joined: 30 Mar 2005 {Posts: 1082 } Location: New Jersey
Posted: Tue 08 Apr 2008 01:55 Post subject:
ArabianKnight wrote:
The Arabs raided all of Italy, Corsica, Southern France, Sardina, and even Bulgaria. The Arabs even sacked Rome. Southern mainland Italian Pensiula was ruled by the Arabs and the same with Sicily, Sardnia, and Corsia. However the Arabs were unsuccessful in capturing Greece of Bulgaria, to do to Greek Fire. Greek Fire was in fact invented by Syrians but the Greeks adopted, this made the Arabs retreated, until the Turkic Ottomans conquered the region and the whole Balkan area. Which did bring with it a Mongol influnce to the regions.
Yes, that is all correct. The Ottomans also had many sub-Saharan types in their ranks, and many such slaves existed in the Ottoman world, including Greece. Interestingly, here is what anthropologist J. L. Angel had to say:
Quote:
In my own skeletal samples from Greece I note apparent negroid nose and mouth traits in two of fourteen Early Neolithic (sixth millenium B.C.), only two or three more among 364 from fifth to second millenium B.C., one among 113 Early Iron Age, one or two among 233 Classic and Hellenistic skeletons, but four clear Negroids (all from one area of Early Christian Corinth) among ninety-five Roman period, two among eighty-five Medieval, and of course ten among fifty-two Turkish period Greeks, yet none among 202 of Romantic (nineteenth century) date.
Incidentally (and sirius2008 will find this to be of interest), I spoke with a history professor (friend of mine), who specializes in European history. I mentioned that I could find no data claiming a Saracen invasion of the Peloponnese, but did see one map that showed the region as having been conquered. He said there is no data pointing to any long-term control of the Peloponnese by Saracens, but that it is certain that they raided it. There is data on raids and occupations of some of the small islands very close to the peninsula. This, and the fact that the Saracens were active in the region, makes it clear that raids on the mainland occurred, but they were either unsuccessful, or very brief, with the Saracens burning a town or two, engaging in "R, P, and P" (rape, plunder, and pillage), then leaving, merely to show the Greeks that they would be a thorn in their side. Regarding the name, it was known as Morea from the early 1200s, but the ancient name was Peloponnesos.
Sirius, the professor also said that Crete was certainly under Saracen control steadily from the 820s (exact date is in dispute) until 961. Raids occurred for about 150 years before this. My encyclopedia is wrong. As you pointed out, newer ones are not free from errors either. I saw a blunder in a new Encyclopedia Britannica. It was mentioned that the German town of Speyer (ancient Nemetum) was taken by the Romans from the inhabitants (the Celto-Germanic Nemetes tribe) around 100 B.C. The date is a blunder, since no Roman army set foot in the region until Caesar's Gallic Wars of 58-52 B.C. Everything one reads must be taken with a grain of salt, I suppose.
Sirius, do you live in the Alsace? I have ancestry from that region. My maternal grandmother's father was from there. His surname was Fillip. He spoke German and French fluently, and considered himself neither of these ethnicities, but always an Alsatian.
Your are correct about what you said in an earlier post regarding German dialects differing from one another. I am much more comfortable with the Austrian and Bavarian dialects (even though these differ from one another, and, indeed, there are differences from town to town!). I have to concentrate if I want to speak Hochdeutsch, and I have a hard time understanding Berliners. Schweizerdeutsch, or as they say, Schwyzerdütsch, may as well be a completely different language, because I can hardly understand any of it. In fact, I can understand more Dutch than Swiss German. I had an easier time with the Walser dialect of Liechtenstein, when I was there.
I have been pretty busy lately but this thread is just great. I am learning so much and resurrecting some information I had forgotten about.
I took a culture and religion class in college from a feminist scholar who laid out the cultural/religious similarities in the treatment of women in varous Mediterranean areas, including North Africa. I can't remember the author or name of the article but we read a fascinating piece on Andalusian male perceptions of women that sounded like it was written by the Taliban! Her name was Dr. Malamud - still one of the best teachers I have ever had.
William wrote:
My maternal grandmother's father was from there. His surname was Fillip. He spoke German and French fluently, and considered himself neither of these ethnicities, but always an Alsatian.
No kidding! My paternal great-great grandfather was also Alsatian. His surname was Carre'. I've always wanted to find out more about that line since he is the only one of his siblings who left home. He was a merchant marine who traveled to Haiti and died there, after marrying my great-great grandmother and having a bunch of kids.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
