# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  North-African admixture in Europe (Dienekes K12b, 2012)

## Euskadi

Thanks to the last autosomal study by Dienekes which includes now 268 populations and 3,115 individuals, we can now estimate more accurately the North African admixture in different ethnic groups/regions in Europe.

Not surprisingly highest admixture is found in Iberia and Sicily which are the only populations with numbers > 2%. Morerover all Iberians (including Catalans) except Basques show North African admixture. 

dodecad.blogspot.com/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

Population
Northwest_African

Canarias_1KG
11.8

Portuguese_D
7.7

Castilla_Y_Leon_1KG
6.1

Extremadura_1KG
6.0

Murcia_1KG
6.0

Spanish_D
5.1

Andalucia_1KG
5.1

Galicia_1KG
5.0

Sicilian_D
4.1

Baleares_1KG
3.7

Castilla_La_Mancha_1KG
3.5

Aragon_1KG
3.4

Cantabria_1KG
3.1

Valencia_1KG
3.0

Spaniards
3.0

S_Italian_Sicilian_D
2.5

Cataluna_1KG
2.4

C_Italian_D
2.3

O_Italian_D
1.1

N_Italian_D
0.9

TSI30
0.8

North_Italian
0.7

French_D
0.6

Greek_D
0.6

Bulgarian_D
0.5

Bulgarians_Y
0.3

French
0.2

Russian_B
0.1

Belorussian
0.0

British_Isles_D
0.0

Dutch_D
0.0

FIN30
0.0

Finnish_D
0.0

French_Basque
0.0

German_D
0.0

Hungarians
0.0

Lithuanian_D
0.0

Lithuanians
0.0

Mixed_Slav_D
0.0

Mordovians_Y
0.0

Norwegian_D
0.0

Pais_Vasco_1KG
0.0

Polish_D
0.0

Romanians
0.0

Russian
0.0

Russian_D
0.0

Swedish_D
0.0

Tuscan
0.0

Ukranians_Y
0.0

----------


## Carlos

Is not it wonderful?

----------


## julia90

this admixture is unimportant on percentage in all europeans (except to some extent canarians for misceneration/mix with native north african people)

----------


## Dorianfinder

One can say that the Caucasoid component in North Africa is also evident through such findings as well and that the Iberian peninsula has contributed more Caucasoid admixture, of their particular variety, into the North African population. This would make sense considering Italian averages for North African admixture and the shared history of Naples/Sicily and Aragon.

In summary, North African admixture in Southern Europe is suggestive of the intricate history of the area, but to assume the direction of flow would be speculative.

Shared North African admixture may suggest any combination of the following:
- Shared Arab/SW Asian components
- Shared Iberian/West Asian Caucasoid components
- Shared West/Sub-Saharan African components

----------


## Knovas

As Julia pointed above, those percents are very low. A non despreciable amount of people getting Northwest African in the K12b experiment (between 2-4%), is 0% African in both World9 and K7b spreadsheets. Of course, this is due to the huge Eurasian influence in North Africa, making absolutely irrelevant the inner African element at this levels.

----------


## Dorianfinder

Like I've said before, when using SNPmap and comparing Middle East and African admixture, the vast majority (at least 90%) of African in Eurasian samples is also common in Middle Eastern admixture (Bedouin, Druze, Palestinian). There definitely appears to be an overlap and depending on one's agenda, one can formulate a statement for or against African or Arab/SW Asian gene flow in Europeans, Jews, Iberians ect ... 

There is a possibility, albeit slight, that a significant percentage of this admixture (2-5%) found in Southern Europe, North Africa and the ME may in fact be unique, like Gedrosia is common to all Europeans but does not suggest modern admixture from Indo-Asia. The question is really, what do Berbers, Turkish Cypriots, Palestinians, Iberians, Jews and Berbers all have in common that stretches across three continents? Your guess is as good as mine. Could the Phoenicians or the Jews have carried this with them?

----------


## Wilhelm

> Like I've said before, when using SNPmap and comparing Middle East and African admixture, the vast majority (at least 90%) of African in Eurasian samples is also common in Middle Eastern admixture (Bedouin, Druze, Palestinian). There definitely appears to be an overlap and depending on one's agenda, one can formulate a statement for or against African or Arab/SW Asian gene flow in Europeans, Jews, Iberians ect ...


No, because the middle-eastern is low in Iberians. The ratio doesn't add up.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> No, because the middle-eastern is low in Iberians. The ratio doesn't add up.


Before I comment let me say that one really needs to study the autosomal SNP frequencies to ascertain whether we are talking about African gene flow to Europe or Eurasian gene flow into Northern Africa. I have glanced at some of the allele frequencies and am astonished at how some autosomal SNPs have been designated geographical or population titles based on the data we have. In short, the δ value otherwise the difference in frequency of a particular autosomal SNP between two populations, needs to be statistically significant (0.95) for it to be associated with a particular geographical/population group. I know of a study that has shown that the AIMs are for the most part (>80) lacking statistical significance (δ) necessary and yet studies are being conducted based on outdated and poorly researched autosomal SNP frequencies. Quite simply, it would seem that the majority of African AIMs are in fact weak geographic markers (Ancestry Informative Markers). Even the West African or as most admixture series have them, Africa/Sub-Saharan African autosomal SNPs, have been designated as such because of the allele frequencies in the HapMap Nigerian population study. The problem here, and let me emphasize just how much of a problem this is, is that the same allele combinations on the same autosomal SNPs have been found in numerous other populations from Asia to Europe in essence disqualifying these markers from admixture analyses. The problem is that the high frequency portrayed in the HapMap project is not matched by any other population group study, pointing to simple sampling bias and overgeneralisation. The HapMap CEU comparative sample, that is not representational of European autosomal SNPs, is not used as a proxi for 'European SNP' designation, so why should the Nigerian sample? The inconsistencies are scewing the picture and African admixture is problematic not only from the perspective of Europeans who have small amounts of African yet have no reason to, but more significantly African participants show sizeable European admixture, senseless admixture that points to poor African autosomal studies.

Wilhelm, your observation makes sense, a low middle-eastern percentage in Iberians suggests that the direction of flow may have been from West to East, a Phoen.. or Jewish diffusion may have carried it throughout certain populations. This correlates with the West to East cline of this component in Southern Europe. A component that!20spread through diffusion from SW Europe to the middle east. Judging from the relatively high percentage of SW European in middle eastern individuals, this component may stem from ancient Iberia or something along these lines. The Dodecad project has a few British participants who have never left the UK and have this North African component and traces (>1%) of Sub-Saharan admixture. The truth be told, ancient middle eastern and/or Jewish population movements may have helped to disperse this component in Britain as in Palestine, Portugal, Cypriot Turks, Italians and the Maltese.

----------


## Euskadi

It is also interesting to note that the distribution of North African admixture in Iberia in Dodecad/K12b is similar to what was found by Adams et al. 2008 (_The Genetic Legacy of Religious Diversity and Intolerance: Paternal Lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula_ at .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/?tool=pmcentrez) and also reflects the distibution of E-M81 (berber) haplogroup


1) E-M81 distribution calculated by Adams et al. 2008

Castile, NorthWest
100
10.00%

 Andalucia, West
73
9.59%

 Portugal, South
78
7.69%

 Galicia
88
9.09%

 Extremadura
52
7.69%

 Valencia
73
4.11%

 Portugal, North
60
3.33%

 Castile, NorthEast
31
3.23%

 Aragon
34
2.94%

 Andalucia, East
95
2.11%

 Castile, La Mancha
63
1.59%

 Catalonia
80
1.25%

 Basques
116
0.86%

 Asturias
20
0.00%




2) North African admixture calculated by Adams et al. 2008


*Iberian region*
*%NW African male admixture*

Castile, NorthWest
21.7%




Galicia
20.8%

Extremadura
19%

Andalucia, West
16.7%

Portugal, South
16.1%

Valencia
12.8%

Portugal, North
11.8%

Asturias
10.5%

Castile, NorthEast
9.3%

Majorca
6.6%

Aragon
4.8%

Ibiza
3.8%

Andalucia, East
2.4%

Catalonia
2.3%

Castilla
0.9%

----------


## Knovas

Sorry, but the mentioned study was pure nonsense. There's no data proving that E-M81, J2 and other linages, were carried by Jews or Muslims. Most of this is likely to be much older, although we still need more ancient DNA.

The autosomal estimation is even more funny. No way Galicians & Portuguese are in the 16-22% range, I don't know where do you see the correlation with the K12b experiment. My guess is that you are not Basque and have a strange agenda behind, it seems pretty clear considering your *2 posts* and the information you show.

----------


## Carlos

Haplogroup E needs further study. It is possible that an important body of humanity is so little studied, yet are unable to tell me how the hell my ancestor V22 arrived in Spain. My avatar is my father, younger blonde was my mother has a weakness for blond hair.

Anyway I think that the user attempts to demonize the M81 Euskadi, a Basque true not act that way, it seems very suspicious.

Haplogroup E needs further study. It is possible that an important body of humanity is so little studied, yet are unable to tell me how the hell my ancestor V22 arrived in Spain. My avatar is my father, younger blonde was my mother has a weakness for blond hair.

Anyway I think that the user attempts to demonize the M81 Euskadi, a Basque true not act that way, it seems very suspicious. What is needed is more research on the haplogroup E to find out how, when and where.

----------


## Wilhelm

> It is also interesting to note that the distribution of North African admixture in Iberia in Dodecad/K12b is similar to what was found by Adams et al. 2008 (_The Genetic Legacy of Religious Diversity and Intolerance: Paternal Lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula_ at .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/?tool=pmcentrez) and also reflects the distibution of E-M81 (berber) haplogroup


That's not the distribution of North-African admixture, but of the frequency of y-DNa E-M81 of only one single study. For more accurate percentages, is better to accumulate different studies, like they do here : 

http://anthrospain.blogspot.com.es/2...-in-spain.html

In general, the percentage of E-M81 in Spain (4-5%) is not very different from that of France, or parts of France (3-4%). In fact, parts of Spain, like in *Huelva, Andalusia*, have less E-M81 than parts of France, like Auvergne. 

As for the Adams et al. study is pure bullshit, since they only used a 3-way population to make the spanish admixtures : Basques (who are an genetica isolate, thus not representative in anyway of the "pure" iberians), Sephardics and North-Africans, and without using Autosomal dna. So the NW Africa score actually carries a lot of West-European alleles. In fact, when doing admixture runs without a North-African component, the north-africans have quite of Atlanto-Med component (which is high in Irish and Basques). The 21% North-African in Castille obviously doesn't make any sense: These percentages would make more sense for Canarians (who have guanche admixture, and have been tested with autosomal as having 18% NAfrican).

----------


## Wilhelm

You have for France : 

French n=3/85 *3.5%* Cruciani 2004.
French n=3/73 *4.1%* Scozzari 2001.
Auvergne n=5/89 *5.62* Cruciani 2004.
Île-de-France (5/91) *5.49* Cruciani 2004.
Béarn, Gascony n=1/56 * 1.78%* Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012, 
Bigorre, Gacony n=1/44 *2.72%* Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012,


While in Spain : 

Southern Spaniards n=1/62 *1.6%* Scozzari 2001.
Huelva, Andalusia n=5/167 *2.99%* Ambrosio 2010.
Andalusia East n=2/95 *2.1%* Adams et al.2008
Cadiz, Andalusia n=0/28 *0.0%* Flores et al.2004


We can see that E-M81 has nothing to do with Muslims, that is pure bullshit of these studies, who have political agendas behind, the distribution of E-M81 in Iberia and France doesn't follow at allt he pattern of Muslim history, because you have Galicia or Cantabria or even parts of France having more than Granada (*where Islam lasted the longest !!* ). Pure logic.

----------


## zanipolo

some people here are too nationalistic in their tone to other people ................ you know who I speak about.

Take , Euskadi, he presents some percentages and tells people where and who wrote this data, and yet some people ridicule him , why ?

So, what if he is or not basque, the argument is against Adams and not the case of insulting Euskadi.

HGs do not belong to nations or cultures exclusively and its about time you remove modern national boundaries when writing in this forum.

----------


## Carlos

> some people here are too nationalistic in their tone to other people ................ you know who I speak about.
> 
> Take , Euskadi, he presents some percentages and tells people where and who wrote this data, and yet some people ridicule him , why ?
> 
> So, what if he is or not basque, the argument is against Adams and not the case of insulting Euskadi.
> 
> HGs do not belong to nations or cultures exclusively and its about time you remove modern national boundaries when writing in this forum.



Where are the insults?

----------


## Carlos

> *Wilhelm
> *We can see that E-M81 has nothing to do with Muslims, that is pure bullshit of these studies, who have political agendas behind, the distribution of E-M81 in Iberia and France doesn't follow at allt he pattern of Muslim history, because you have Galicia or Cantabria or even parts of France having more than Granada (*where Islam lasted the longest !!* ). Pure logic.


No more blind as those who will not see. Obviously the low level of M81 in Spain must be of the oldest Muslim period in Spain, since the raids and deportations were carried out in bulk and meticulous, and 800 years, less centuries since then in many areas with presence Muslims are not sufficient to mixed marriages, especially considering that in those days there was no globalization and anti-nature ideas, and religion marked the lives of people so there would be a great apartheid between different ethnic groups, racial, religious or what you say.

----------


## Knovas

I was the first who said Euskadi was not Basque (or a serious participant, doesn't matter) because of the 2 posts talking about the same, and I also considered the strange conclusion comparing K12b results with the mentioned study. Really, there's absolutely no similarity: ¿where is the 20% North African among Gallicians in the K12b experiment?, ¿how can somebody think such thing seriously if there isn't an agenda behind?


Sorry, but some things are too evident. I guess you wasn't talking about me zanipolo (you know what happened in other threads), but I wanted to leave this clear explaining the reason of my position.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Before I comment let me say that one really needs to study the autosomal SNP frequencies to ascertain whether we are talking about African gene flow to Europe or Eurasian gene flow into Northern Africa. I have glanced at some of the allele frequencies and am astonished at how some autosomal SNPs have been designated geographical or population titles based on the data we have. In short, the δ value otherwise the difference in frequency of a particular autosomal SNP between two populations, needs to be statistically significant (0.95) for it to be associated with a particular geographical/population group. I know of a study that has shown that the AIMs are for the most part (>80) lacking statistical significance (δ) necessary and yet studies are being conducted based on outdated and poorly researched autosomal SNP frequencies. Quite simply, it would seem that the majority of African AIMs are in fact weak geographic markers (Ancestry Informative Markers). Even the West African or as most admixture series have them, Africa/Sub-Saharan African autosomal SNPs, have been designated as such because of the allele frequencies in the HapMap Nigerian population study. The problem here, and let me emphasize just how much of a problem this is, is that the same allele combinations on the same autosomal SNPs have been found in numerous other populations from Asia to Europe in essence disqualifying these markers from admixture analyses. The problem is that the high frequency portrayed in the HapMap project is not matched by any other population group study, pointing to simple sampling bias and overgeneralisation. The HapMap CEU comparative sample, that is not representational of European autosomal SNPs, is not used as a proxi for 'European SNP' designation, so why should the Nigerian sample? The inconsistencies are scewing the picture and African admixture is problematic not only from the perspective of Europeans who have small amounts of African yet have no reason to, but more significantly African participants show sizeable European admixture, senseless admixture that points to poor African autosomal studies.


Dienekes very recently stated the following:

_5.jpg

It is noteworthy, that for the first time, *some deep Sub-Saharan African populations* show evidence of *Eurasian admixture*; the type of this admixture is not clear, but it seems to be mostly *West* rather than East Eurasian. It may, in fact, reflect an element that was already West Eurasian-like, since there is a definite excess of the West Eurasian-centered component in the Sub-Saharan populations.

Note that this element was picked up because the SNP ascertainment was done on a San individual. The San were not generally used for the ascertainment of SNPs in commercial SNP arrays designed for association studies, and hence their SNP diversity is generally under-reported. But, the panel4 of SNPs was ascertained in a San individual with full genome sequencing (as described in the Harvard HGDP materials).

Hence, it appears that Yoruba are 82.9% of the San-centered component, BantuKenya 78.3%, BantuSouthAfrica 86.9%, BiakaPygmy 94.7%, Mandenka 80.9%, MbutiPygmy 97.9%. San-centered components have appeared before in ADMIXTURE experiments, but the crucial difference here is that the remainder of the African populations' ancestry does not fall in another Sub-Saharan-centered component, but rather in the Eurasian ones.

----------


## MOESAN

> Dienekes very recently stated the following:
> 
> _5.jpg
> 
> It is noteworthy, that for the first time, *some deep Sub-Saharan African populations* show evidence of *Eurasian admixture*; the type of this admixture is not clear, but it seems to be mostly *West* rather than East Eurasian. It may, in fact, reflect an element that was already West Eurasian-like, since there is a definite excess of the West Eurasian-centered component in the Sub-Saharan populations.
> 
> .


not too surprising
if it is true that some North African Berber populations show a light imput of 'black' or 'negroid' blood when speaking of phenotypes (and they have a genetic basis) the same can be said about subsaharian populations: some of their ethnies show a very important imput of 'white' (I think 'caucasian' not only for the skin colour) - Look at the Peuls, came almost surely from Eastern Africa, maybe from Arabia or Levant - I heard speak by serious people of green eyes frequent even so far as in ethnies of Cameroun (but I have not the names of these ethnies): I know personally breton-male-cameounese female's children "chocolate coloured" with very beautiful fully pure BLUE EYES even if their mother is black eyed... Cameroun is a hotspot of Y-R1b in some tribes (even if I know it is unsecure doing too easy links...

for E1-M81 I think seriously that this SNP was carried to Iberia at several times and by several populations - for the ones we find in France and Western Iberia, North Portugal, I think these ones came there before the Muslims invasions- some surveys conclude like that also - speaking about skeletons and crania, grimaldoïd types was yet around the Mediterranean Sea (Spain, Southern France, Italy, even Greece) at the level of 4% to 12% of the skeletons at the last neolithic - what HG to attirbute to them??? for CHARLES the type was not dominant but frequent enough in Egypt at the Néolithic. the today majority of western Berbers of HG E1-M81 have not this old 'grimaldoid' type (confused with Cro-Magnon by someones, that is an error) - E1 (the old SNP before subdivisions well known noaday in Europe and Africa and Levant) could have been bearer of 'negroid' prognathy we find attenuated in southern Europe and Near-East and that was found attenuated too in the first LBK Rubanés COON's 'danubians' - this do not signify all downstream E1b bearers had completely the same physical features, only a remote influence, from a place in Eastern Africa where people was evoluting yet to a partially 'caucasian' type - another survey concludes that some light 'subafrican' metric facial features for was to be found among the very first neolithic agicultors -

----------


## MOESAN

I had that for bones a lot of Ethiopians and Erythreans looks far more 'caucasian' than 'subafrican' (common but yet very unprecise namings)

----------


## Dorianfinder

Dienekes notes that HG A and B are purely African Y-haplogroups whereas HG D is East Asian. He states that sccording to the new software preliminary findings show that African populations with HG E have proportionally higher amounts of West Eurasian genetic input suggesting that HG E may not be 'entirely' African. This is interesting as it links HG E with Eurasia and not with Africa as first thought. No doubt this will be followed up with some interesting comments and articles.

----------


## Knovas

Yes Dorian, these are fascinating findings. Seems like the Out of Arabia hypothesis suggested by Dienekes' regarding modern human origins, was more than pure fantasy and must be considered. If we asume that haplogroup E originated somewhere around the Arabian Península, and that humans who carried the ancient marker were already more caucasoid than anything else (or I'd better talk about affinities with modern caucasoids, not easy to define), then, some things begin making more sense.


I know it's too early and quite dificult to state how old is the West Eurasian influence found among deep Sub-Saharan populations, specially those living in a more Western direction. But you know, it's impossible to avoid thinking about this and remembering possible related discussions.

----------


## spongetaro

> Dienekes notes that HG A and B are purely African Y-haplogroups whereas HG D is East Asian. He states that sccording to the new software preliminary findings show that African populations with HG E have proportionally higher amounts of West Eurasian genetic input suggesting that HG E may not be 'entirely' African. This is interesting as it links HG E with Eurasia and not with Africa as first thought. No doubt this will be followed up with some interesting comments and articles.


Haplogroup E would then be some sort of Back migration to Africa but when did this migration occur? It would be interesting if its correlated with the spread Afro Asiatic languages to Africa.

----------


## Dorianfinder

> Yes Dorian, these are fascinating findings. Seems like the Out of Arabia hypothesis suggested by Dienekes' regarding modern human origins, was more than pure fantasy and must be considered. If we asume that haplogroup E originated somewhere around the Arabian Península, and that humans who carried the ancient marker were already more caucasoid than anything else (or I'd better talk about affinities with modern caucasoids, not easy to define), then, some things begin making more sense.
> 
> 
> I know it's too early and quite dificult to state how old is the West Eurasian influence found among deep Sub-Saharan populations, specially those living in a more Western direction. But you know, it's impossible to avoid thinking about this and remembering possible related discussions.


Coon's theory consists of a linear continuum with Eurasians on the one end and Pygmy and San on the other end. Dienekes decided to test this out and found that the Pygmy and San are indeed farthest away on the PC plot from Eurasians with the Yoruba being the closest African population. East African populations such as the Ethiopians have even more Eurasian but this includes more recent Arabic and SW Asian input which is not what Dienekes is interested in as he would like to focus on the palaeo-Eurasian component in Africans.

----------


## Powervr

My values... 5% of north african. I am from lisbon and all of my ancestors lived nearby lisbon.
Population


Gedrosia
5.18%

Siberian
-

Northwest_African
4.98%

Southeast_Asian
-

Atlantic_Med
43.11%

North_European
24.66%

South_Asian
0.45%

East_African
0.84%

Southwest_Asian
7.08%

East_Asian
-

Caucasus
13.41%

Sub_Saharan
0.29%

----------


## Noman

These kind of population genetics are crap, in this case specifically he's probably finding the visigoths and berbers in africa, not africans in europe.

There are even a few people who seem to believe the irish came from north africa if you can believe it. 

You can't take these too seriously because the reference populations make very huge assumptions about what an african or european is and gets easily foiled by selection, too.

----------


## Thel 'Vadam

Some North Africans like Riffian are very similar to Europe Ethnic

----------


## tlangford18

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing!

----------


## Moor

Interesting. thanks for the post.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> It is also interesting to note that the distribution of North African admixture in Iberia in Dodecad/K12b is similar to what was found by Adams et al. 2008 (_The Genetic Legacy of Religious Diversity and Intolerance: Paternal Lineages of Christians, Jews, and Muslims in the Iberian Peninsula_ at .ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2668061/?tool=pmcentrez) and also reflects the distibution of E-M81 (berber) haplogroup
> 
> 
> 1) E-M81 distribution calculated by Adams et al. 2008
> 
> Castile, NorthWest
> 100
> 10.00%
> 
> ...


Historical reasons for high North African admixture in Galicia?

----------


## Drac II

> Historical reasons for high North African admixture in Galicia?


Or Cantabria, or Asturias. The pattern for African DNA frequencies in Iberia does not follow historical events. This has been noticed many times, including Eupedia itself. The people who should have the most (southerners) actually have less of it than people who should have less of it (westerners), thus strongly suggesting that African DNA in Iberia is due to older events. Also, autosomal studies that have actually bothered to estimate a time-frame for this DNA in Iberia have found it to be from pre-Islamic times.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Or Cantabria, or Asturias. The pattern for African DNA frequencies in Iberia does not follow historical events. This has been noticed many times, including Eupedia itself. The people who should have the most (southerners) actually have less of it than people who should have less of it (westerners), thus strongly suggesting that African DNA in Iberia is due to older events. Also, autosomal studies that have actually bothered to estimate a time-frame for this DNA in Iberia have found it to be from pre-Islamic times.


Ok, pre-Islamic times but when? Were these haplogroups (North African admixture) part of Iberian ethnos?

----------


## Hauteville

Asturians have much less NA admixture than most of Iberians, Cantabria as well except for the Pasiegos but they are an ethnic group.
You must read the differences between Spanish_North and other Spanish in the Haak et al. paper.
Notice the differences between West and East Andalucia, the east part (Granada) had a repopulation and it's showing in these admixtures.
Anyway probably some admixture arrived during the Carthaginian era and pre-historical era, notice that some parts of south Europe are close geographically to North Africa, Gibraltar is more or less 10 km.

----------


## bicicleur

> Ok, pre-Islamic times but when? Were these haplogroups (North African admixture) part of Iberian ethnos?


the only event I could think of is the spread of cattle through North-Africa which could have continued into Iberia, but that would have been some 8000 years ago

people from Carthago never got that far north/northwest as Cantabria or Asturias

----------


## Vukodav

In Cruciani et al 2004, the frequency of African marker E-M81 was 41% among Pasiegos from Cantabria. That's the highest frequency found so far in Europe.

----------


## Hauteville

Asturians in Adams et al table have 0% of M81 though and the peak in Cantabria is in the Pasiegos who are an ethnic population with unknown origins afaik, ohterwise ethnic Cantabrias have less NA admixture.
Anyway for Iberian peninsula there is more like a west-east gradient thant north-south.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasiego

----------


## Vukodav

In Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012 the frequency of E-M81 in Cantabria is 5.5%.

----------


## Hauteville

> In Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012 the frequency of E-M81 in Cantabria is 5.5%.


Without Pasiegos?

----------


## Vukodav

> Without Pasiegos?


Probably yes, because the neighbouring regions of Bizkaia and Burgos have also 5-6% of E-M81 in the same study.

----------


## Drac II

> Ok, pre-Islamic times but when? Were these haplogroups (North African admixture) part of Iberian ethnos?


Moorjani et al. 2011 estimate shows it to be several centuries older, and Lazaridis et al. 2013 estimate anywhere between a few centuries to even as much as a few thousand years before Islam even existed. Its presence in Iberia is very likely prehistoric with some later contribution closer to Carthaginian/Roman times. So very little of it could be due to Islamic times.

----------


## Hauteville

> Moorjani et al. 2011 estimate shows it to be several centuries older, and Lazaridis et al. 2013 estimate anywhere between a few centuries to even as much as a few thousand years before Islam even existed. Its presence in Iberia is very likely prehistoric with some later contribution closer to Carthaginian/Roman times. So very little of it could be due to Islamic times.


So do for you Romans imported Berber slaves in ancient Iberia?
About Carthaginians, they were Phoenicians transplanted in northern coast of Tunisia, not a Berber civilization, so they carried some J and some West Asian admixture more than North African and M81 marker.

----------


## Drac II

> So do for you Romans imported Berber slaves in ancient Iberia?
> About Carthaginians, they were Phoenicians transplanted in northern coast of Tunisia, not a Berber civilization, so they carried some J and some West Asian admixture more than North African and M81 marker.


Either that or the Roman armies carried some of them into Iberia, like they also brought some of them to the British Isles (presence of North Africans in Roman-era Britain has been confirmed by both written evidence as well as archaeological evidence.)

Since the Carthaginians are known to have recruited locals for their armies wherever they went to, I have little doubt that some of them must have been native Berbers. Their armies in Europe were in fact largely made up of local Iberian and Celtic/Celtiberian recruits and mercenaries.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> the only event I could think of is the spread of cattle through North-Africa which could have continued into Iberia, but that would have been some 8000 years ago
> 
> people from Carthago never got that far north/northwest as Cantabria or Asturias


Thanks, so basically can we say that were part of Iberian ethnos?

----------


## Drac II

> Thanks, so basically can we say that were part of Iberian ethnos?


Part of the ancient gene pool of Iberia, yes.

----------


## Pax Augusta

> Part of the ancient gene pool of Iberia, yes.


Ok, thanks.

----------


## Vukodav

> Without Pasiegos?


More data I've found.

Frequency of E-M81 in Cantabria (ouside of Pasiegos)
.

16.7% (n=6/36) Maca-Meyer 2003.
5.56% (n=1/18) Martínez-Cruz et al. 2012
10.56% (n=17/161) Brion et al.

Total E-M81 in Cantabria (ouside of Pasiegos) = 11,16%

----------


## Alan

We have ancient farmer DNA from Anatolia who seemed to have some ~20% NW African type DNA additional to 65% Atlantic_Med and 14% Caucasus. I think this is the best indication that some of this "NW African" admixture in Iberia represent a EEF type ancestry which both NW Africans and Iberians share from their EEF ancestry. Galicia having highest frequency of NW African doesn't actually mean it received most NW African DNA, it simply means it has most farmer DNA which some of it they share with modern NW Africans.

----------


## Johannes

> Part of the ancient gene pool of Iberia, yes.


Well yes and no: Historical sources state that there was substantial Berber settlements in Southern Portugal, Western Andalusia, and in Valencia-Murcia region. This happend in two periods: 1) After the Muslim occupation the Berbers were initially given the northern areas to settle (Castlile-Leon, Basque Country, and Galicia). The Berbers hated this area because it was wet and had extreme climates and they were isolated, and they were constantly attacked by the Visigoths (afterwards "Christians"). Therefore after Berber Revolt of 739-743 (which almost overthrew the Arabs of Andalusia) a settlement was made in which the Berbers were given lands in the SW and SE of the Iberian peninsula. *BUT many Berbers stayed in the North* *(Galicia and Leon) and later converted to Christianity*. So this could explain to a certain extent the Berber marker in the Northwest. As a compromise the Syrians (who had defeated the Berbers) gave the Berbers lands around Southern Portugal, Western Andalusia and Southern Valencia. 2) The second period was under the Almoravid and Almohad invasions, which were composed of mainly Berbers. The Berbers increased the numbers of settlers in the same regions. HOWEVER, during the early 13th century almost all the Berbers were ethnically cleansed either by extermination and/or expulsion (by choice and forced). Therefore the Berber marker does show some correlation in Galicia-Leon, in Western Andalusia, and in Valencia.

----------


## Johannes

> Historical reasons for high North African admixture in Galicia?


Of course the Romans could have brought some Berbers into Iberia but its unlikely they were numerous. It is known that the Carthaginians/Phoenicians did recruit Berbers into Hannibal's Army but they fought mainly in Italy. 

These studies are probably flawed in that they use too few samples to make a true reflection of the race mixing. 11.8% to 21.7% seems too high for the west and northwest (even for Valencia it is high). The first Adams test seems more accurate 7.69%-10%. But we need to remember that some of this is from prehistorical times and some from the Muslim invasions. How much is one over the other we will never know.

----------


## Johannes

> Moorjani et al. 2011 estimate shows it to be several centuries older, and Lazaridis et al. 2013 estimate anywhere between a few centuries to even as much as a few thousand years before Islam even existed. Its presence in Iberia is very likely prehistoric with some later contribution closer to Carthaginian/Roman times. So very little of it could be due to Islamic times.


YES and NO. Even though most the Berbers were ethnically cleansed during the Reconquista many stayed and converted to Christianity and lived in their traditional regions, i.e., Southern Portugal, Western Andalusia, and Valencia-Murcia. Also many Berbers in the northwest converted to Christianity after they were captured by the Visigoths during the 750's (after the Berber Revolt). SO THEY DID CONTRIBUTE to the Iberian DNA but we do not know how much. I will guess its 50% prehistoric and 50% Muslim.

----------


## Johannes

> We have ancient farmer DNA from Anatolia who seemed to have some ~20% NW African type DNA additional to 65% Atlantic_Med and 14% Caucasus. I think this is the best indication that some of this "NW African" admixture in Iberia represent a EEF type ancestry which both NW Africans and Iberians share from their EEF ancestry. Galicia having highest frequency of NW African doesn't actually mean it received most NW African DNA, it simply means it has most pre Indo European farmer DNA which some of it they share with modern NW Africans.


That is correct. According to a new EUROGENES study of the Allentoft and Haak ADMIXTURE analysis Algerians, Moroccans, and Tunisians have 34%, 27%, and 40% EEF/WHG DNA. So some of it must have gone into the Iberian Peninsula and beyond.

----------


## Drac II

> Well yes and no: Historical sources state that there was substantial Berber settlements in Southern Portugal, Western Andalusia, and in Valencia-Murcia region. This happend in two periods: 1) After the Muslim occupation the Berbers were initially given the northern areas to settle (Castlile-Leon, Basque Country, and Galicia). The Berbers hated this area because it was wet and had extreme climates and they were isolated, and they were constantly attacked by the Visigoths (afterwards "Christians"). Therefore after Berber Revolt of 739-743 (which almost overthrew the Arabs of Andalusia) a settlement was made in which the Berbers were given lands in the SW and SE of the Iberian peninsula. *BUT many Berbers stayed in the North* *(Galicia and Leon) and later converted to Christianity*. So this could explain to a certain extent the Berber marker in the Northwest. As a compromise the Syrians (who had defeated the Berbers) gave the Berbers lands around Southern Portugal, Western Andalusia and Southern Valencia. 2) The second period was under the Almoravid and Almohad invasions, which were composed of mainly Berbers. The Berbers increased the numbers of settlers in the same regions. HOWEVER, during the early 13th century almost all the Berbers were ethnically cleansed either by extermination and/or expulsion (by choice and forced). Therefore the Berber marker does show some correlation in Galicia-Leon, in Western Andalusia, and in Valencia.


There is no evidence of any significant Berber settlement in places like Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, areas that hardly had any contact with Muslims. The "Reconquista" itself was initiated in this part of Spain. So no, there is hardly much historical correlation with the distribution of this DNA in Spain. 

Valencia is on the eastern part of Spain, and it also has less of it than the western part of Iberia. 

Plus the Arabs and Berbers were only like 5% of the population of Iberia, even if all of them had permanently settled in the western parts it would hardly correlate with some of these frequencies. Any way you look at it, there is hardly any correlation.

----------


## Drac II

> YES and NO. Even though most the Berbers were ethnically cleansed during the Reconquista many stayed and converted to Christianity and lived in their traditional regions, i.e., Southern Portugal, Western Andalusia, and Valencia-Murcia. Also many Berbers in the northwest converted to Christianity after they were captured by the Visigoths during the 750's (after the Berber Revolt). SO THEY DID CONTRIBUTE to the Iberian DNA but we do not know how much. I will guess its 50% prehistoric and 50% Muslim.


Your "guess" is contradicted by both history and genetics.

----------


## Drac II

> Of course the Romans could have brought some Berbers into Iberia but its unlikely they were numerous. It is known that the Carthaginians/Phoenicians did recruit Berbers into Hannibal's Army but they fought mainly in Italy. 
> 
> These studies are probably flawed in that they use too few samples to make a true reflection of the race mixing. 11.8% to 21.7% seems too high for the west and northwest (even for Valencia it is high). The first Adams test seems more accurate 7.69%-10%. But we need to remember that some of this is from prehistorical times and some from the Muslim invasions. How much is one over the other we will never know.


Adams et al. made a bunch of unwarranted assumptions (it assumed that basically anything that wasn't R1b must be due to "Jews" and "Moors", which is utterly ridiculous and they were criticized for it), plus they too used very small samples for some regions, thus giving a skewed view of the matter. Such things can be corrected to a degree by "pooling" the samples from other studies, giving a more accurate picture.

----------


## Sile

> There is no evidence of any significant Berber settlement in places like Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, areas that hardly had any contact with Muslims. The "Reconquista" itself was initiated in this part of Spain. So no, there is hardly much historical correlation with the distribution of this DNA in Spain. 
> 
> Valencia is on the eastern part of Spain, and it also has less of it than the western part of Iberia. 
> 
> Plus the Arabs and Berbers were only like 5% of the population of Iberia, even if all of them had permanently settled in the western parts it would hardly correlate with some of these frequencies. Any way you look at it, there is hardly any correlation.


The biggest Carthagian city excluding Carthage , was *new Carthage* in Spain

----------


## Johannes

> There is no evidence of any significant Berber settlement in places like Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, areas that hardly had any contact with Muslims. The "Reconquista" itself was initiated in this part of Spain. So no, there is hardly much historical correlation with the distribution of this DNA in Spain. 
> 
> Valencia is on the eastern part of Spain, and it also has less of it than the western part of Iberia. 
> 
> Plus the Arabs and Berbers were only like 5% of the population of Iberia, even if all of them had permanently settled in the western parts it would hardly correlate with some of these frequencies. Any way you look at it, there is hardly any correlation.


Why don't you pay attention? I never said Asturias or Cantabria or any substantial Berber settlement in the NW! After the Muslim invasion the Berbers were given garrison duty in Galicia, Castile-Leon and Basque Country/Navarre (they were protecting the northern frontier against attack by the Goths, Cantabrians, and Basques). They lived there for only 20-25 years with their families and then got fed up with the climate, constant attacks by Goths, maltreatment by the Arabs, and left to topple the Arabs. Of course the vast majority of the Berbers left with the three Berber Armies (one to conquer Merida and Cordova, another to take Toledo, and third to take Almeria). But many stayed, especially the mountain herders. They eventually converted to Christianity. They were not very numerous but if you imagine how the towns and cities were being repopulated at that time, the Berbers would have impacted on the DNA to a certain extent. The only big cities were Leon and Pamplona. So if you can imagine the race mixing that occured after the resettlement of Christians in the Duero Valley, then it would have added several percentage points to the Iberian DNA.

I know you have read some books that I am not aware of since its been almost two decades since I did my research but I do remember that the Berber population was 20% of the Muslim polpulation in Iberia. If we imagine 1/3 of the population was free of Muslim control and the 2/3 in Al-Andalus (and 80% converted to Islam), this will make 1.5-1.7 millions in the north and 2.5-3.3 millions in Al-Andalus if we use 4-5 million people during the 8th to 11th centuries. Thus the Berber population would have been about 500,000-660,000 in southern Iberia (southern Portugal, western Andalusia, and Valencia). Thus they would have impacted the Iberian DNA but to a limited extent (of course the Berbers were hated and looked down by European Muslims and Arabs as second-class citizens and the Berbers stuck to themselves and lived far apart from Europeans and Arabs, never the less they would have mixed to a certain extent. How much we don't know).

----------


## Drac II

> Why don't you pay attention? I never said Asturias or Cantabria or any substantial Berber settlement in the NW! After the Muslim invasion the Berbers were given garrison duty in Galicia, Castile-Leon and Basque Country/Navarre (they were protecting the northern frontier against attack by the Goths, Cantabrians, and Basques). They lived there for only 20-25 years with their families and then got fed up with the climate, constant attacks by Goths, maltreatment by the Arabs, and left to topple the Arabs. Of course the vast majority of the Berbers left with the three Berber Armies (one to conquer Merida and Cordova, another to take Toledo, and third to take Almeria). But many stayed, especially the mountain herders. They eventually converted to Christianity. They were not very numerous but if you imagine how the towns and cities were being repopulated at that time, the Berbers would have impacted on the DNA to a certain extent. The only big cities were Leon and Pamplona. So if you can imagine the race mixing that occured after the resettlement of Christians in the Duero Valley, then it would have added several percentage points to the Iberian DNA.
> 
> I know you have read some books that I am not aware of since its been almost two decades since I did my research but I do remember that the Berber population was 20% of the Muslim polpulation in Iberia. If we imagine 1/3 of the population was free of Muslim control and the 2/3 in Al-Andalus (and 80% converted to Islam), this will make 1.5-1.7 millions in the north and 2.5-3.3 millions in Al-Andalus if we use 4-5 million people during the 8th to 11th centuries. Thus the Berber population would have been about 500,000-660,000 in southern Iberia (southern Portugal, western Andalusia, and Valencia). Thus they would have impacted the Iberian DNA but to a limited extent (of course the Berbers were hated and looked down by European Muslims and Arabs as second-class citizens and the Berbers stuck to themselves and lived far apart from Europeans and Arabs, never the less they would have mixed to a certain extent. How much we don't know).


The Duero region hardly has much to do with Galicia, Asturias or Cantabria, it is mostly in Castile and Leon. And I also doubt that there was a significant presence of Berbers around there too. As you said yourself, the Berbers were needed in other parts of Iberia due to frequent conflicts, whether caused by Christians ("Mozarabs", in other words, Christians living in nominally Muslim areas, and those coming from the north as "reconquerors"), the Arab aristocracy and its struggles to secure nominal control, or the "Muwalladun" uprisings (i.e. Iberian Muslim groups declaring their independence from the Caliphate.)

Also, "race-mixing" in this case is rather a misnomer. Berbers are Caucasians.

The 5% figure I mentioned earlier would be for both Arabs and Berbers compared to the whole native population of Iberia ("Mozarabs" living in Muslim-controlled territories, northern independent Christians, and the local "Muwalladun", i.e. converts to Islam.)

----------


## Drac II

> The biggest Carthagian city excluding Carthage , was *new Carthage* in Spain


Cartagena is on the shores of Murcia, nothing to do with the north, and "New Carthage" was the name the Romans gave the city after it was conquered less than 20 years after its foundation.

----------


## Johannes

> The Duero region hardly has much to do with Galicia, Asturias or Cantabria, it is mostly in Castile and Leon. And I also doubt that there was a significant presence of Berbers around there too. As you said yourself, the Berbers were needed in other parts of Iberia due to frequent conflicts, whether caused by Christians ("Mozarabs", in other words, Christians living in nominally Muslim areas, and those coming from the north as "reconquerors"), the Arab aristocracy and its struggles to secure nominal control, or the "Muwalladun" uprisings (i.e. Iberian Muslim groups declaring their independence from the Caliphate.)
> 
> Also, "race-mixing" in this case is rather a misnomer. Berbers are Caucasians.
> 
> The 5% figure I mentioned earlier would be for both Arabs and Berbers compared to the whole native population of Iberia ("Mozarabs" living in Muslim-controlled territories, northern independent Christians, and the local "Muwalladun", i.e. converts to Islam.)


5% is way too low. Where do you get this figure??? Do you have documentation? 20% is more closer to the truth. I know I am using my memory on this but I believe Collins and Fletcher mentioned the percentage of Bebers in Spain and it was not 5%. But I found a source that confirms what I said: "In the power hierarchy, Berbers were situated between the Arabic aristocracy and the Muladi populace. Ethnic rivalry was one of the most important factors driving Andalusi politics. Berbers made up as much as 20% of the population of the occupied territory.[49] After the fall of the Caliphate, the Taifa kingdoms of Toledo, Badajoz, Málaga and Granada had Berber rulers.[_citation needed_] During the Reconquista, Berbers in the areas which became Christian kingdoms were acculturated and lost their ethnic identity, their descendants being among modern Spanish and Portuguese peoples." I got this from Wikipedia but you shuold check out Collins and Fletcher and let me know. There is also a new book you should check: "The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of North Africa and Spain," by Abdulwahid Dhanun Taha.

During the invasion of Iberia the Berbers did not constitute no more than perhaps 20,000 warriors and their families. But during the Emirate and the Caliphate their numbers grew. I am also sure during the Almoravid-Almohad invasions even more Berbers entered and settled in Iberia. So 500,000 sounds about right. Morocco and Algeria are very close to Spain and Portugal. The Berbers hated the Spanish Muslims and Arabs and so they settled in areas far away from them that had been deserted by Christians (mainly SW and SE Iberia). Then their conversion to Christianity during the 13th century would have added the Berber marker in these areas.

----------


## Drac II

> 5% is way too low. Where do you get this figure??? Do you have documentation? 20% is more closer to the truth. I know I am using my memory on this but I believe Collins and Fletcher mentioned the percentage of Bebers in Spain and it was not 5%. But I found a source that confirms what I said: "In the power hierarchy, Berbers were situated between the Arabic aristocracy and the Muladi populace. Ethnic rivalry was one of the most important factors driving Andalusi politics. Berbers made up as much as 20% of the population of the occupied territory.[49] After the fall of the Caliphate, the Taifa kingdoms of Toledo, Badajoz, Málaga and Granada had Berber rulers.[_citation needed_] During the Reconquista, Berbers in the areas which became Christian kingdoms were acculturated and lost their ethnic identity, their descendants being among modern Spanish and Portuguese peoples." I got this from Wikipedia but you shuold check out Collins and Fletcher and let me know. There is also a new book you should check: "The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of North Africa and Spain," by Abdulwahid Dhanun Taha.
> 
> During the invasion of Iberia the Berbers did not constitute no more than perhaps 20,000 warriors and their families. But during the Emirate and the Caliphate their numbers grew. I am also sure during the Almoravid-Almohad invasions even more Berbers entered and settled in Iberia. So 500,000 sounds about right. Morocco and Algeria are very close to Spain and Portugal. The Berbers hated the Spanish Muslims and Arabs and so they settled in areas far away from them that had been deserted by Christians (mainly SW and SE Iberia). Then their conversion to Christianity during the 13th century would have added the Berber marker in these areas.


That source says 20% in the occupied territories only, it does not take into account the entire population of the peninsula, and it seems a bit too high to me. Other sources (example: Fermin Miranda Garcia and Yolanda Guerrero Navarrete) say probably less than 10%. The about 5% or actually even less figure comes from here, who is a Professor Emeritus of Hispano-Arabic Studies:

https://books.google.com/books?id=jY...20one.&f=false

"It is assumed that the Arabs who settled the Peninsula were numerically far fewer than the Berbers. Whatever their respective proportions, both groups would have been outnumbered by the indigenous population by a figure of perhaps thirty or forty to one. The immense majority of the indigenous inhabitants may be divided amongst those who became Muslims and those who did not." 

Simple arithmetic from such proportions shows the estimated percentage: for every 1 Berber/Arab foreigner about 30 to 40 Visigoths, Hispano-Romans, Iberians and Celtiberians = only 3.22 or 2.43% of the population. Allow some room for possible errors, and you get about 5%, more or less. Again, hardly impressive numbers. Most historians specializing in Iberia agree that the number of Muslim foreigners, whether Arab or Berber, was very small. The reason why Islam managed to survive so many centuries in Iberia is beyond any shadow of a doubt thanks to the support it gathered from the huge numbers of local converts, starting with the Visigoths themselves (ironically romanticized by many as some supposed great defenders of Christianity.)

The book by Taha is not new, it was already published in 1989. In fact, the above cited professor Hitchcock uses it as a source in his own book.

----------


## Johannes

> That source says 20% in the occupied territories only, it does not take into account the entire population of the peninsula, and it seems a bit too high to me. Other sources (example: Fermin Miranda Garcia and Yolanda Guerrero Navarrete) say probably less than 10%. The about 5% or actually even less figure comes from here, who is a Professor Emeritus of Hispano-Arabic Studies:
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=jY...20one.&f=false
> 
> "It is assumed that the Arabs who settled the Peninsula were numerically far fewer than the Berbers. Whatever their respective proportions, both groups would have been outnumbered by the indigenous population by a figure of perhaps thirty or forty to one. The immense majority of the indigenous inhabitants may be divided amongst those who became Muslims and those who did not." 
> 
> Simple arithmetic from such proportions shows the estimated percentage: for every 1 Berber/Arab foreigner about 30 to 40 Visigoths, Hispano-Romans, Iberians and Celtiberians = only 3.22 or 2.43% of the population. Allow some room for possible errors, and you get about 5%, more or less. Again, hardly impressive numbers. Most historians specializing in Iberia agree that the number of Muslim foreigners, whether Arab or Berber, was very small. The reason why Islam managed to survive so many centuries in Iberia is beyond any shadow of a doubt thanks to the support it gathered from the huge numbers of local converts, starting with the Visigoths themselves (ironically romanticized by many as some supposed great defenders of Christianity.)
> 
> The book by Taha is not new, it was already published in 1989. In fact, the above cited professor Hitchcock uses it as a source in his own book.


Its strange that Taha's book came out at about the time I was doing all my research on Medieval Iberia and I never even heard of it until now! Maybe because it was published by a Muslim that it never saw light in USA??

The professor is very vague on his figures. Does he explain how he arrived at those proportions? 

Of course in the occupied territories it was 20%. In the whole North the Berbers were insignificant but in the areas where they settled they had an impact and added to the NW DNA of Iberia, not by much, but by some points. The Berbers and their families who converted to Christianity in the lowlands of Galicia and Leon did not stop reproducing children. They eventually increased and mixed with the Germano-Celtic population and added to the DNA and that is why the percentages are higher in the W than in the E. If we take the 500,000 Berbers and divide them by 5,000,000 you get 10% not 5%. But in my opinion it was higher, something like 12.5 % because I believe there were only 4 million inhabitants during the Early Middle Ages. And this figure reflects the DNA studies found in modern times. 

Well it depends on what kind of population figure you are using. Are you still using 7 million Iberians from the 5th century to the 11th century? How did you calculate this figure of 2.43 or 3.22%???

----------


## Sile

> 5% is way too low. Where do you get this figure??? Do you have documentation? 20% is more closer to the truth. I know I am using my memory on this but I believe Collins and Fletcher mentioned the percentage of Bebers in Spain and it was not 5%. But I found a source that confirms what I said: "In the power hierarchy, Berbers were situated between the Arabic aristocracy and the Muladi populace. Ethnic rivalry was one of the most important factors driving Andalusi politics. Berbers made up as much as 20% of the population of the occupied territory.[49] After the fall of the Caliphate, the Taifa kingdoms of Toledo, Badajoz, Málaga and Granada had Berber rulers.[_citation needed_] During the Reconquista, Berbers in the areas which became Christian kingdoms were acculturated and lost their ethnic identity, their descendants being among modern Spanish and Portuguese peoples." I got this from Wikipedia but you shuold check out Collins and Fletcher and let me know. There is also a new book you should check: "The Muslim Conquest and Settlement of North Africa and Spain," by Abdulwahid Dhanun Taha.
> 
> During the invasion of Iberia the Berbers did not constitute no more than perhaps 20,000 warriors and their families. But during the Emirate and the Caliphate their numbers grew. I am also sure during the Almoravid-Almohad invasions even more Berbers entered and settled in Iberia. So 500,000 sounds about right. Morocco and Algeria are very close to Spain and Portugal. The Berbers hated the Spanish Muslims and Arabs and so they settled in areas far away from them that had been deserted by Christians (mainly SW and SE Iberia). Then their conversion to Christianity during the 13th century would have added the Berber marker in these areas.


Berbers and arabs are different races.

There was no arabs in north africa when the Roman empire existed

----------


## AgnusDei

> The biggest Carthagian city excluding Carthage , was *new Carthage* in Spain


Interesting, was it called qart khadash khadash in Punic ? lol

----------


## Johannes

> Berbers and arabs are different races.
> 
> There was no arabs in north africa when the Roman empire existed



That's correct Sile. The Berbers looked much closer to Greeks and southern Italians, while Arabs looked almost like sub-Saharan blacks. Later when the Berbers brought many blacks into Iberia the myth of the "Moor as being Black" was born.

----------


## Drac II

> The professor is very vague on his figures. Does he explain how he arrived at those proportions? 
> 
> Of course in the occupied territories it was 20%. In the whole North the Berbers were insignificant but in the areas where they settled they had an impact and added to the NW DNA of Iberia, not by much, but by some points. The Berbers and their families who converted to Christianity in the lowlands of Galicia and Leon did not stop reproducing children. They eventually increased and mixed with the Germano-Celtic population and added to the DNA and that is why the percentages are higher in the W than in the E. If we take the 500,000 Berbers and divide them by 5,000,000 you get 10% not 5%. But in my opinion it was higher, something like 12.5 % because I believe there were only 4 million inhabitants during the Early Middle Ages. And this figure reflects the DNA studies found in modern times. 
> 
> Well it depends on what kind of population figure you are using. Are you still using 7 million Iberians from the 5th century to the 11th century? How did you calculate this figure of 2.43 or 3.22%???


Hitchcock uses many sources. Regarding the estimates of the number of Arabs/Berbers he uses Livermore's figures for the calculation. Historians calculate such figures from the available evidence, like tax records or contemporary censuses or estimates. They do not pull them out of their hats just for the heck of it.

In the nominally Muslim territories their numbers were more likely less than 10% of the inhabitants, as more modern scholars like Fermin Miranda Garcia and Yolanda Guerrero Navarrate estimate. 

There was hardly much Berber presence anywhere in the NW. The distribution of North African DNA in Iberia can't be attributed to historical events. By the strange arguments that you try to use we should expect the same DNA to be much higher all over the south and even the NE, where there was more and longer presence of these foreign minorities, yet it is in fact not so but quite the opposite: lowest in the NE and south, highest in the western parts, the ones that ironically had the least of this presence. On top of that the autosomal studies that have actually estimated the age of such DNA in Iberia have shown it to predate Islamic times.

I told you, an elementary percentage calculation from Hitchcock's estimate that for every one Arab/Berber there were about 30 to 40 natives is equivalent to only 2.43 to 3.22% of the population. Do the math and see it for yourself.

----------


## Drac II

> while Arabs looked almost like sub-Saharan blacks.


That's actually not true. We have plenty of evidence of what Arabs looked like (both before and during Islamic times), from artwork to literary references, and obviously they did not look like black Africans.

----------


## Johannes

"the strange arguments that you try to use" --- That is so hilarious!! Strange arguments maybe to you! because they bring new evidence that escaped you, and that it does not rely solely on what professors write, and because you are most biased and stubborn guy I ever met in this forum!!!

----------


## Johannes

> That's actually not true. We have plenty of evidence of what Arabs looked like (both before and during Islamic times), from artwork to literary references, and obviously they did not look like black Africans.








It is well known that the first Arab invaders of Europe were Yemeni Arabs and here it clearly shows what they must have looked like. They are not exactly like blacks but can be close in certain people.

----------


## Johannes

> That's actually not true. We have plenty of evidence of what Arabs looked like (both before and during Islamic times), from artwork to literary references, and obviously they did not look like black Africans.










Then these guys invaded and took over most of Andalusia.

----------


## Johannes

> That's actually not true. We have plenty of evidence of what Arabs looked like (both before and during Islamic times), from artwork to literary references, and obviously they did not look like black Africans.


Here are the Berbers.

----------


## Angela

> It is well known that the first Arab invaders of Europe were Yemeni Arabs and here it clearly shows what they must have looked like.



Weren't the Umayyed's from central Saudi Arabia? The Abbasids were Hashemites from what I remember. 

I would think they would have looked more like the House of Saud:


Or like Ali of Hejaz:


The lower classes might have been more mixed, of course:



Plus, everything I've read indicates that the Muslim dynasties recruited widely in different parts of the Muslim world for military leaders and civilian administrators both. Much of the strength of the Umayyed's was based on the Syrian troops they incorporated, from what I remember.

Regardless, even if some Yemeni tribesmen went to Spain, they can hardly be described as SSA looking. 

This is what SSA people look like:


So I think that was a bit of an exaggeration.

----------


## Johannes

> Weren't the Umayyed's from central Saudi Arabia? The Abbasids were Hashemites from what I remember. 
> 
> I would think they would have looked more like the House of Saud:
> 
> 
> Or like Ali of Hejaz:
> 
> 
> The lower classes might have been more mixed, of course:
> ...


I said they looked kind-of-like SSA, not exactly, more like mulattoes. I did see Yemeni Arabs in Chicago one time and they looked like mulattoes. Yes Yemenite Arabs were the first to invade North Africa and they ended up in Europe. Later it was the Syrians who entered and conquered Andalusia. Eventually after about 50 years of war the Yemeni, Berbers, and the Syrians divided their power and ruled Andalusia. However, they were eventually suppressed by Abd al Rahman I. The Arabs were very racist and arrogant. They considered white people and Berbers as inferior and were generally hated by the Berbers and European Muslims.

----------


## Angela

> I said they looked kind-of-like SSA, not exactly, more like mulattoes. I did see Yemeni Arabs in Chicago one time and they looked like mulattoes. Yes Yemenite Arabs were the first to invade North Africa and they ended up in Europe. Later it was the Syrians who entered and conquered Andalusia. Eventually after about 50 years of war the Yemeni, Berbers, and the Syrians divided their power and ruled Andalusia. However, they were eventually suppressed by Abd al Rahman I. The Arabs were very racist, and arrogant. They considered white people and Berbers as inferior and were generally hated by the Berbers and European Muslims.


Could you provide a citation for the fact that it was specifically Yemeni Arabs who went to Iberia? I'm not doubting you, but I've never seen that anywhere.

----------


## Johannes

> Could you provide a citation for the fact that it was specifically Yemeni Arabs who went to Iberia? I'm not doubting you, but I've never seen that anywhere.


Angela its in every book or journal written on the Muslim invasion of Iberia. I don't have any primary sources to give you now because I am not in USA. But I remember it's in all books written on the Muslim invasions of Spain. The Qais (Qays) were Syrian Arabs and the Kalb (Qalb) were Yemeni Arabs. The Yemeni Arabs were the first to enter Iberia, then the Syrians followed. Before this they fought in the Middle East over Byzantine territory and their hatred carried on into Europe. I don't have sources here with me so I am using my memory but you can check "The Umayyad Conquest of Iberia" on wikipedia. Actually Collins and Fletcher cover this. Check them out.

----------


## Alan

> Weren't the Umayyed's from central Saudi Arabia? The Abbasids were Hashemites from what I remember. 
> 
> I would think they would have looked more like the House of Saud:
> 
> 
> Or like Ali of Hejaz:
> 
> 
> The lower classes might have been more mixed, of course:
> ...


Just with Islam the stronger additional admixture occured because slavery was going back. It was muhammed who tried to forbid slavery, before that there was not much mixing. So I certanly agree the Arabs who invaded/conquered parts of Europe looked more like the Hashemites or House of Saud. During that time the Hashemites were on power. WHen the house of Saud took the power, the Hashemites fled to Jordan. King Abdullah II of Jordan ist the last confirmed descend of Muhammed and a Hashemite.


famous Hashemites




From what I have seen most Yemenites look simply like a mix of Arabians and Egyptians. There are some SSA groups who have historically migrated and settled in Yemen but the original Yemenites have their distinct look (Which includes some very ancient SSA admixture and it's features are already merged and deluded into the Southwest Asian genes).
This is how I know them.

----------


## Drac II

> "the strange arguments that you try to use" --- That is so hilarious!! Strange arguments maybe to you! because they bring new evidence that escaped you, and that it does not rely solely on what professors write, and because you are most biased and stubborn guy I ever met in this forum!!!


Once again you show that your manner of "debating" is to pretty much make up your own assertions. You need to have the work of those professors that you so casually dismiss to support your claims, otherwise it is just your word, and since you are not an expert in the field it obviously does not carry as much weight as that of those professors.

----------


## Drac II

> Then these guys invaded and took over most of Andalusia.


The people you posted don't look like black Africans, as others have pointed out (one of the Arabs you posted even has blue eyes, is obviously quite tanned and wrinkled, and his features are not Negroid.) Also, someone else pointed out the influence of the increasing later slave trade between Africa and the Arabian peninsula, which you have failed to take into account. I suggested that you should have looked rather at ancient artwork made by the Arabs themselves so you would get a better idea of their features in older times. Here are some examples from pre-Islamic times, notice the non-Negroid facial traits:

----------


## Johannes

> The people you posted don't look like black Africans, as others have pointed out (one of the Arabs you posted even has blue eyes, is obviously quite tanned and wrinkled, and his features are not Negroid.) Also, someone else pointed out the influence of the increasing later slave trade between Africa and the Arabian peninsula, which you have failed to take into account. I suggested that you should have looked rather at ancient artwork made by the Arabs themselves so you would get a better idea of their features in older times. Here are some examples from pre-Islamic times, notice the non-Negroid facial traits:


We don't know what the Yemeni Arabs or Arabs in general looked like in ancient times. However, many Yemeni Arabs look like mulattoes. OK? I saw them in USA. The original Arabs were dark-skinned, with woolly hair, and looked nothing like Europeans. Later they mixed with blacks. That does not mean they are pure black. A lot of Yemeni Arabs could pass for black but also others look like Semites. Yemen is very close to Africa, so it's no wonder some look like blacks. Besides I did not include many other pictures that showed the black-looking Arabs. However, by the 7th century the Arabs had already mixed with blacks, just as Jews did as well. It's clear on how the phenotype shows distinctive black features on some Arabs.

----------


## Johannes

> Once again you show that your manner of "debating" is to pretty much make up your own assertions. You need to have the work of those professors that you so casually dismiss to support your claims, otherwise it is just your word, and since you are not an expert in the field it obviously does not carry as much weight as that of those professors.


I am an expert it's just that I don't have a PhD. I have a Masters in History but know as much as any professor out there about Spanish History. Just because you have a piece of paper that says "doctor or professor" does not mean I cannot put my own analysis. I read all the books and articles on Medieval Spanish History up to the late 1990's. So I don't make up nothing. Everything I know comes directly form what I researched. You just follow slave-like what professors say without doing your own original research.

----------


## Drac II

> We don't know what the Yemeni Arabs or Arabs in general looked like in ancient times. However, many Yemeni Arabs look like mulattoes. OK? I saw them in USA. The original Arabs were dark-skinned, with woolly hair, and looked nothing like Europeans. Later they mixed with blacks. That does not mean they are pure black. A lot of Yemeni Arabs could pass for black but also others look like Semites. Yemen is very close to Africa, so it's no wonder some look like blacks. Besides I did not include many other pictures that showed the black-looking Arabs. However, by the 7th century the Arabs had already mixed with blacks, just as Jews did as well. It's clear on how the phenotype shows distinctive black features on some Arabs.


A lot of the ancient artwork shown above is in fact from Yemen, so yes, we do have a pretty good idea of what their general facial features were. They certainly were not Negroid people. Even today making such a claim is incorrect, as the majority of them are still Caucasoid, despite all the influence of the slave trade between sub-Saharan Africa and the Arabian Peninsula in later centuries, so let alone in those older times.

----------


## Drac II

> I am an expert it's just that I don't have a PhD. I have a Masters in History but know as much as any professor out there about Spanish History. Just because you have a piece of paper that says "doctor or professor" does not mean I cannot put my own analysis. I read all the books and articles on Medieval Spanish History up to the late 1990's. So I don't make up nothing. Everything I know comes directly form what I researched. You just follow slave-like what professors say without doing your own original research.


Your "original research" seems to consist mostly in making bold assertions that you often can't back up with the work of those experts, who are actually more qualified to make assertions, and that you seem to very casually dismiss when they happen to not agree with your claims.

----------


## MOESAN

> Of course in the occupied territories it was 20%. In the whole North the Berbers were insignificant but in the areas where they settled they had an impact and added to the NW DNA of Iberia, not by much, but by some points. The Berbers and their families who converted to Christianity in the lowlands of Galicia and Leon did not stop reproducing children. They eventually increased and mixed with the Germano-Celtic population and added to the DNA and that is why the percentages are higher in the W than in the E. If we take the 500,000 Berbers and divide them by 5,000,000 you get 10% not 5%. But in my opinion it was higher, something like 12.5 % because I believe there were only 4 million inhabitants during the Early Middle Ages. And this figure reflects the DNA studies found in modern times. 
> 
> Well it depends on what kind of population figure you are using. Are you still using 7 million Iberians from the 5th century to the 11th century? How did you calculate this figure of 2.43 or 3.22%???


 *The Berbers and their families who converted to Christianity in the lowlands of Galicia and Leon did not stop reproducing children. They eventually increased and mixed with the Germano-Celtic population and added to the DNA and that is why the percentages are higher in the W than in the E.

*What are you meaning by 'they add' when they mix with more non-Berber populations? The celtic and germanic imput could only reduce the percentage of DNA of the Berbers, for I think, no? Or I missed something?
That said, Galicia would be among the less concerned by Berbers and Arabs, but it is true Galicians show more Y-E1b, some of which is not M81, and more Y-J1 of "semitic" (Sinaï origin?) than other Spanyards, even more than some Andalusia districts, according to old surveys (not the famous "Jewish" theory, of course). That is still to explain...
for I think, the Y-E-M81 of Iberia is, for a part, more ancient than the Arabo-Berber occupation, maybe before plain Neolithic there. Concerning aDNA, it seems that Mediterranea mt-DNA is very more level than the Y-DNA, showing some high exchanges in Mediterranea concerning females (maybe newer surveys could contradict it, I don't know?). More DNA surveys about ancient Near-East Anatolia will give us more keys.

----------


## MOESAN

> We don't know what the Yemeni Arabs or Arabs in general looked like in ancient times. However, many Yemeni Arabs look like mulattoes. OK? I saw them in USA. The original Arabs were dark-skinned, with woolly hair, and looked nothing like Europeans. Later they mixed with blacks. That does not mean they are pure black. A lot of Yemeni Arabs could pass for black but also others look like Semites. Yemen is very close to Africa, so it's no wonder some look like blacks. Besides I did not include many other pictures that showed the black-looking Arabs. However, by the 7th century the Arabs had already mixed with blacks, just as Jews did as well. It's clear on how the phenotype shows distinctive black features on some Arabs.


I've no proof concerning ancient Arabs (Antiquity), but the 1950 Bedawins of everykind were 95% to 100% 'europoid' of some 'mediterranean'-'near-eastern' kind, NOT mulattos as you say: if you could have seen their bottom skin, you could have stated they were very lighter skinned tha believed!: today southern Yemenites ARE NOT the former Arabs but their crossings with 'melanoafricans'/'subsaharian' people and 'eastafrican' people  mediated through females forthe most changed the question. SO I agree here with Drac II

I don't speak here of Syrian "Arabs" or Lebanese "Arabs" among whom an heavy Caucasus+ Balkanlike + sligh Northern Euro components can be seen as well for pigmentation or for bones and corpulence and even facial details like mouth, nose, eyelids... (I think in Late Bronze Age here). it seems Arab means NOT WHITE NOT CAUCASIAN in the US common sense, or...? the Arab world is large: and even looking at Koweitians - a small lcountry, nevertheless - you see they are divided in more than a population, with DNA and physical differences .
Sure the african part will rise up in future in South, but it is recent enough. By the way, it is rising up in North too!!!
Just the point of a man who was young in the 70's.

----------


## Angela

> I've no proof concerning ancient Arabs (Antiquity), but the 1950 Bedawins of everykind were 95% to 100% 'europoid' of some 'mediterranean'-'near-eastern' kind, NOT mulattos as you say: if you could have seen their bottom skin, you could have stated they were very lighter skinned tha believed!: today southern Yemenites ARE NOT the former Arabs but their crossings with 'melanoafricans'/'subsaharian' people and 'eastafrican' people  mediated through females forthe most changed the question. SO I agree here with Drac II
> 
> I don't speak here of Syrian "Arabs" or Lebanese "Arabs" among whom an heavy Caucasus+ Balkanlike + sligh Northern Euro components can be seen as well for pigmentation or for bones and corpulence and even facial details like mouth, nose, eyelids... (I think in Late Bronze Age here). it seems Arab means NOT WHITE NOT CAUCASIAN in the US common sense, or...? the Arab world is large: and even looking at Koweitians - a small lcountry, nevertheless - you see they are divided in more than a population, with DNA and physical differences .
> Sure the african part will rise up in future in South, but it is recent enough. By the way, it is rising up in North too!!!
> Just the point of a man who was young in the 70's.


I agree with all of that except that I think that in southwestern Yemen there might have been some East African admixture or let's say gene flow back and forth between Yemen and Ethiopia/Eritrea from very ancient times as well as in the modern era. Without ancient dna I don't know how it could be quantified.

See: Kingdom of Aksum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum

Still it seems that the majority of the admixture may indeed have taken place post the slave trade. 

There are also "ethnic" distinctions within Yemen. There is a separate "untouchable" caste of uncertain origin, and there are indeed "mulatto" looking people with relatively recent admixture who are subject to their own kind of discrimination. I doubt that the Yemenis who were involved in the Islamic conquests would have looked like either of these groups. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Akhdam

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...253333236.html

These are some plates of "Yemeni highlanders" I was quickly able to access. I'm sure that Moesan would know of more. I would think perhaps they would have looked more like this? The skin color is deceiving; everyone looks darker on these plates, and this is exposed skin. They don't look at all SSA.




They are also different from the "Arabs" further north or even Arabs like the members of the Saud family. Both the Yemeni type and the more perhaps "Caucasus" type would have been involved in the conquests.

----------


## Johannes

> Your "original research" seems to consist mostly in making bold assertions that you often can't back up with the work of those experts, who are actually more qualified to make assertions, and that you seem to very casually dismiss when they happen to not agree with your claims.


What are you talking about? I always back up all of my assertions. I never make up things. I cannot show you books or articles now because I don't live in the USA like you do. Most of my examples of what historians wrote I am getting from my brain. I read ALL the books and journals on this topic up into the 1990's. True, I have not done recent research, but I doubt any "new" research will add anything new to what I have already found. I just agree that the Goths did a lot of good for Spain and Portugal and you just simply disagree. You are just stubborn and you are the one who never changes. You stick to the same old theory over and over again. You just back it up with unimportant books that have been recently published. Anyway, I don't care what you think.

----------


## Johannes

> *The Berbers and their families who converted to Christianity in the lowlands of Galicia and Leon did not stop reproducing children. They eventually increased and mixed with the Germano-Celtic population and added to the DNA and that is why the percentages are higher in the W than in the E.
> 
> *What are you meaning by 'they add' when they mix with more non-Berber populations? The celtic and germanic imput could only reduce the percentage of DNA of the Berbers, for I think, no? Or I missed something?
> That said, Galicia would be among the less concerned by Berbers and Arabs, but it is true Galicians show more Y-E1b, some of which is not M81, and more Y-J1 of "semitic" (Sinaï origin?) than other Spanyards, even more than some Andalusia districts, according to old surveys (not the famous "Jewish" theory, of course). That is still to explain...
> for I think, the Y-E-M81 of Iberia is, for a part, more ancient than the Arabo-Berber occupation, maybe before plain Neolithic there. Concerning aDNA, it seems that Mediterranea mt-DNA is very more level than the Y-DNA, showing some high exchanges in Mediterranea concerning females (maybe newer surveys could contradict it, I don't know?). More DNA surveys about ancient Near-East Anatolia will give us more keys.


It's simple: When the Berbers settled in their towns and villages in Leon and Galicia they reproduced more males with E1b1 than before and thus it added to the percentages of E1b1. This does not mean they increased the amount of Berbers. When the Berbers mixed with the natives they eventually disappeared as a phenotype but still caused a slight increase in the percentages of the males carrying E1b1. Thus it reflects the studies done on the regions. 

Yes i am not doubting that most or maybe half of the E1b1 was from neolithic times but all I am saying is that the Berbers added a little more. This is why there is more E1b1 in the west than in the east. This reflects the historical record.

----------


## Johannes

> I've no proof concerning ancient Arabs (Antiquity), but the 1950 Bedawins of everykind were 95% to 100% 'europoid' of some 'mediterranean'-'near-eastern' kind, NOT mulattos as you say: if you could have seen their bottom skin, you could have stated they were very lighter skinned tha believed!: today southern Yemenites ARE NOT the former Arabs but their crossings with 'melanoafricans'/'subsaharian' people and 'eastafrican' people  mediated through females forthe most changed the question. SO I agree here with Drac II
> 
> I don't speak here of Syrian "Arabs" or Lebanese "Arabs" among whom an heavy Caucasus+ Balkanlike + sligh Northern Euro components can be seen as well for pigmentation or for bones and corpulence and even facial details like mouth, nose, eyelids... (I think in Late Bronze Age here). it seems Arab means NOT WHITE NOT CAUCASIAN in the US common sense, or...? the Arab world is large: and even looking at Koweitians - a small lcountry, nevertheless - you see they are divided in more than a population, with DNA and physical differences .
> Sure the african part will rise up in future in South, but it is recent enough. By the way, it is rising up in North too!!!
> Just the point of a man who was young in the 70's.


I didn't say ALL Yemenis are mulattoes. I said some looked like that. Yemenis have changed very little in the last 2000 years. They show about 80% J1 and the females 85% N and R (The bulk of individuals (86%) belonged to the Eurasian macrohaplogroup N and its main R branch (75%), while the Sub-Saharan Africa macrohaplogroup L (7%) and the Asian macrohaplogroup M (7%) accounted for a smaller proportion of haplotypes.) www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32. This is a homogeneous population. Therefore if some looked like blacks it was because of ancient times not recent. It must have been the mixing with Ethiopians. Anyway the Yemenis I saw looked very similar to American mulattoes. For males see: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml. For females see: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32 and Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 

As for Syrians: yes, they looked very much like southern Europeans. This is because they had mixed with Greeks and Romans. Syria was the most important province in the Middle East and thousands of Europeans settled there and became "Arabs." But the Yemenis certainly did not look European.

----------


## Johannes

Yes Angela, the evidence points to Ethiopia as the key: Please see Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

----------


## Angela

> I didn't say ALL Yemenis are mulattoes. I said some looked like that. Yemenis have changed very little in the last 2000 years. They show about 80% J1 and the females 85% U5. This is a homogeneous population. Therefore if some looked like blacks it was because of ancient times not recent. It must have been the mixing with Ethiopians. Anyway the Yemenis I saw looked very similar to American mulattoes. For males see: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml. For females see: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32and Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 
> 
> As for Syrians: yes, they looked very much like southern Europeans. This is because they had mixed with Greeks and Romans. Syria was the most important province in the Middle East and thousands of Europeans settled there and became "Arabs." But the Yemenis certainly did not look European.


Gene flow both ways there definitely was for the Yemenis, but if you read the article in the link many of the "Mulatto" looking ones are the product of intermarriage with Ethiopians and Eritreans within the _last 100 years_. The Yemeni highlanders who would most likely be the closest population to the tribesmen who formed part of the Islamic forces do _not_ look like mulattoes. They are "Mediterranean" in phenotype. 

This overlap does _not_ exist because Levantines mixed with Greeks or Romans or Crusaders, or at least that's a small part of the reason. The major reason is that all Europeans (although the percentages are different) and all Near Easterners have ancestry from the early neolithic farmers of the Near East (EEF). Both Europe and the Near East also have ancestry from the ancient ANE population. Europe differs in also being descended from WHG foragers. However, it seems that there was some WHG even in the northern Near East. In addition, there has been additional gene flow from SSA into the Near East with the Arab slave trade, and we're now discovering there could have been some degree of influence from India. In far northeastern Europe we have some Mongolian influence as well.

If you haven't read them yet, you should read Lazaridis et al and Haak et al.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433

Scholarship didn't end in the 1990s.

----------


## Johannes

> Gene flow both ways there definitely was for the Yemenis, but if you read the article in the link many of the "Mulatto" looking ones are the product of intermarriage with Ethiopians and Eritreans within the _last 100 years_. The Yemeni highlanders who would most likely be the closest population to the tribesmen who formed part of the Islamic forces do _not_ look like mulattoes. They are "Mediterranean" in phenotype. 
> 
> This overlap does _not_ exist because Levantines mixed with Greeks or Romans or Crusaders, or at least that's a small part of the reason. The major reason is that all Europeans (although the percentages are different) and all Near Easterners have ancestry from the early neolithic farmers of the Near East (EEF). Both Europe and the Near East also have ancestry from the ancient ANE population. Europe differs in also being descended from WHG foragers. However, it seems that there was some WHG even in the northern Near East. In addition, there has been additional gene flow from SSA into the Near East with the Arab slave trade, and we're now discovering there could have been some degree of influence from India. In far northeastern Europe we have some Mongolian influence as well.
> 
> If you haven't read them yet, you should read Lazaridis et al and Haak et al.
> http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2013/12/23/001552
> http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433
> 
> Scholarship didn't end in the 1990s.


Yes I know scholarship did not end in the 90's. This is why I joined this forum in order to catch up on genetics only. It seems that Arabs from Yemen are different from Arabs of the north: The Arabs from the north of Yemen have more J2, while the Yemenis have super high J1. The difference is: "*It is significantly different from Yemen mainly due to a comparative reduction of sub-Saharan Africa E1-M123 and Levantine J1-M267 male lineages."*  See this article: *Saudi Arabian Y-Chromosome diversity and its relationship with nearby regions* http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/10/59. It seems that Yemenis had mixed with Africans way back in time (Ethiopians and Eritreans.)

----------


## Drac II

> What are you talking about? I always back up all of my assertions. I never make up things. I cannot show you books or articles now because I don't live in the USA like you do. Most of my examples of what historians wrote I am getting from my brain. I read ALL the books and journals on this topic up into the 1990's. True, I have not done recent research, but I doubt any "new" research will add anything new to what I have already found. I just agree that the Goths did a lot of good for Spain and Portugal and you just simply disagree. You are just stubborn and you are the one who never changes. You stick to the same old theory over and over again. You just back it up with unimportant books that have been recently published. Anyway, I don't care what you think.


The one clinging to obsolete and romanticized notions is you, not me. You seem quite uninterested in modern historical scholarship and casually dismiss it simply because it does not agree with many of your strange claims.

----------


## Drac II

> It's simple: When the Berbers settled in their towns and villages in Leon and Galicia they reproduced more males with E1b1 than before and thus it added to the percentages of E1b1. This does not mean they increased the amount of Berbers. When the Berbers mixed with the natives they eventually disappeared as a phenotype but still caused a slight increase in the percentages of the males carrying E1b1. Thus it reflects the studies done on the regions. 
> 
> Yes i am not doubting that most or maybe half of the E1b1 was from neolithic times but all I am saying is that the Berbers added a little more. This is why there is more E1b1 in the west than in the east. This reflects the historical record.


Once again, this is not in agreement with the historical record. By this logic the amount of this DNA should be somewhat higher in the south than anywhere else in Iberia, since it had a larger and longer presence of these foreigners. Yet it is not so.

----------


## Drac II

> I didn't say ALL Yemenis are mulattoes. I said some looked like that. Yemenis have changed very little in the last 2000 years. They show about 80% J1 and the females 85% N and R (The bulk of individuals (86%) belonged to the Eurasian macrohaplogroup N and its main R branch (75%), while the Sub-Saharan Africa macrohaplogroup L (7%) and the Asian macrohaplogroup M (7%) accounted for a smaller proportion of haplotypes.) www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32. This is a homogeneous population. Therefore if some looked like blacks it was because of ancient times not recent. It must have been the mixing with Ethiopians. Anyway the Yemenis I saw looked very similar to American mulattoes. For males see: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.shtml. For females see: www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/7/32 and Ethiopian Mitochondrial DNA Heritage: Tracking Gene Flow ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 
> 
> As for Syrians: yes, they looked very much like southern Europeans. This is because they had mixed with Greeks and Romans. Syria was the most important province in the Middle East and thousands of Europeans settled there and became "Arabs." But the Yemenis certainly did not look European.


As another user suggested, you should read your own links. None of those papers denies the obvious role of the later Islamic slave trade between the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. The historical evidence about this is very strong for any serious researcher to try to casually dismiss it. Slavery still goes on today in many parts of the Muslim world.

The ancient artwork of the Yemenis themselves shows quite well that they were Caucasian peoples. In fact, I have yet to see even one example of a piece of ancient Yemeni artwork showing a human face with Negroid traits. In later Islamic times we have artwork like this which is very pertinent to the subject. Portrayal of a slave market in 13th century AD Yemen:




I'll let you guess who are the black African slaves being sold and the Arabs selling them and buying them. Really, it is not so hard to tell them apart.

----------


## Johannes

> Once again, this is not in agreement with the historical record. By this logic the amount of this DNA should be somewhat higher in the south than anywhere else in Iberia, since it had a larger and longer presence of these foreigners. Yet it is not so.


You are wrong: History shows quite clearly that the reason why non-European DNA is less in the south compared to the north is because t*he Berbers and Spanish Muslims in the SW and SE were ethnically cleansed during the 13-17th centuries (especially during the 13th)*. Most of the DNA of Andalusians came from the north of Spain. The majority of the Berbers lived in the SW. Also many Berbers converted to Christianity and this added a further amount in the South West or West of the Iberian peninsula. The Berber DNA in the North and West only added and not lessened the overall DNA of the Iberians.

----------


## Johannes

> The one clinging to obsolete and romanticized notions is you, not me. You seem quite uninterested in modern historical scholarship and casually dismiss it simply because it does not agree with many of your strange claims.


The only thing that is obsolete is your mind. All you do is follow slave-like one way of interpreting the facts. I told you many times that I researched everything about this topic. I am not adding anything new here. Almost everything has been figured out about the Berbers or Muslims in Spain. You just think that a new book sheds light on the subject. But the real truth is that all they do is rehash what has been told in the past with something subjective added to it (in order for historians to get tenured). Do you think historians in the past just sat around farting and not doing serious research? So all the research in the past is just rubbish? The simple truth is that you are a stubborn and biased person and will fight tooth and nail to support your interpretations and not accept anything different from your views.

----------


## Johannes

> As another user suggested, you should read your own links. None of those papers denies the obvious role of the later Islamic slave trade between the Arabian Peninsula and East Africa. The historical evidence about this is very strong for any serious researcher to try to casually dismiss it. Slavery still goes on today in many parts of the Muslim world.
> 
> The ancient artwork of the Yemenis themselves shows quite well that they were Caucasian peoples. In fact, I have yet to see even one example of a piece of ancient Yemeni artwork showing a human face with Negroid traits. In later Islamic times we have artwork like this which is very pertinent to the subject. Portrayal of a slave market in 13th century AD Yemen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you guess who are the black African slaves being sold and the Arabs selling them and buying them. Really, it is not so hard to tell them apart.


Have you ever heard of "idealistic" portraits in paintings and sculpture???? If you do then you will know that the figures in most paintings and sculptures do not represent "real" reality. They are idealized. Get it? Just because you see a painting does not mean it represents actual reality. The Arabs could have been painted yellow or red and so does that mean they were yellow or red? Or what? do you think Arabs were white?

----------


## Drac II

> You are wrong: History shows quite clearly that the reason why non-European DNA is less in the south compared to the north is because t*he Berbers and Spanish Muslims in the SW and SE were ethnically cleansed during the 13-17th centuries (especially during the 13th)*. Most of the DNA of Andalusians came from the north of Spain. The majority of the Berbers lived in the SW. Also many Berbers converted to Christianity and this added a further amount in the South West or West of the Iberian peninsula. The Berber DNA in the North and West only added and not lessened the overall DNA of the Iberians.


Expulsions of Muslims (who, once again, were predominantly just native converts to Islam, not foreigners) took place all over where they were found, not just the south. So your "explanations" don't work. The fact that the western parts of Iberia have more of this DNA than other parts can't be attributed to any historical events, since this same evidence would show that the southern parts are the ones that should have more of it (Carthaginian presence + longer Islamic presence) Yet it is otherwise. The logical conclusion is that these foreign minorities from historical times could only be responsible for a small part of this DNA in Iberia, and then again mostly in the south, not the west.

----------


## Drac II

> The only thing that is obsolete is your mind. All you do is follow slave-like one way of interpreting the facts. I told you many times that I researched everything about this topic. I am not adding anything new here. Almost everything has been figured out about the Berbers or Muslims in Spain. You just think that a new book sheds light on the subject. But the real truth is that all they do is rehash what has been told in the past with something subjective added to it (in order for historians to get tenured). Do you think historians in the past just sat around farting and not doing serious research? So all the research in the past is just rubbish? The simple truth is that you are a stubborn and biased person and will fight tooth and nail to support your interpretations and not accept anything different from your views.


Once again, it is I who usually quotes from and backs up his statements with the work of actual modern scholars specializing on the subject, whose books have been published in the last 100+ years, not you. Most of what you say is just you inventing stuff. You obviously have very little idea on how to debate and support your claims.

----------


## Drac II

> Have you ever heard of "idealistic" portraits in paintings and sculpture???? If you do then you will know that the figures in most paintings and sculptures do not represent "real" reality. They are idealized. Get it? Just because you see a painting does not mean it represents actual reality. The Arabs could have been painted yellow or red and so does that mean they were yellow or red? Or what? do you think Arabs were white?


Have you heard that this silly excuse does not wash? You already tried it with your earlier claims (which you now seem to reject after you were shown pertinent evidence to the contrary) about North Africans supposedly also being "blacks". People even today have a tendency of portraying humans according to those of their own origin, in other words, what is familiar to them. Just look at modern European or American art up to the early 20th century. Do you see many Australoid or Mongoloid faces in it? No. And this despite modern visual communications like movies and TV developing in the previous two centuries, and artists still have this tendency of portraying the human physiognomies they are most acquainted with. Needless to say, it was even more so in ancient art, when people did not have such modern forms of communication and would have had a much more limited world view. People represented humans as they saw them, as themselves and the people who surrounded them. That's why you can easily tell Yemeni artistic representations of humans apart from those of sub-Saharan Africans. Now, if your absurd claim that Yemenis were pretty much Negroid people or heavily mixed with them was true, we should expect to see this reflected in their own art, which is hardly the case.

Arabs are Caucasians, and some of them are certainly depigmented enough to qualify as "white". "White" is a more restrictive term because it only includes people of a certain degree of skin depigmentation, usually found among Europeans more than any other Caucasians. This is why most anthropologists have avoided words like "white" or "black" when talking about races and instead use words like Cacuasian/Caucasoid or Negroid, since these terms refer to craniofacial traits, not skin pigmentation, which has never been considered a reliable indicator of race.

----------


## MOESAN

I was speaking about the general affiliation of former Arabs.
I agree too with what you wrote. In southwestern Yemen, it is very possible that since ancient times, a population close to East-African was there; the Arabs got down from North towards South, what explains their 'europoid' principal element, to answer to Johannes. The nomadic Bedawins in yemen seemed very endogame so they showed almost no SSA african element, 70 years ago. In other populations, sedentized, there was already a mix, not only with SSA or EA for someones but also with higher %s of brachycephalic 'europoid' maybe from North Near-East. I've not the needed knowledge about Arabia history to go into details. I red even the Mongols could have had a light imput in some parts of the great so called arab territories, before Turcs. The Saudis seem a bit more crossed than the Yemeni Bedawins with maybe some drifts from endogamy among their higher classes.
&; my feeling is that the true nod of first nomadic Arabs was not too far from the Sinai (could be confirmed by Y-E1b and Y-J1 subclades history?)

----------


## MOESAN

[QUOTE=Johannes;462614]Have you ever heard of "idealistic" portraits in paintings and sculpture???? If you do then you will know that the figures in most paintings and sculptures do not represent "real" reality. They are idealized. Get it? Just because you see a painting does not mean it represents actual reality. The Arabs could have been painted yellow or red and so does that mean they were yellow or red? Or what? do you think Arabs were white?[/QUOTE

_Sorry but you are going a bit too far with your arguing: even if the "white" skin on these paintings could be exagerated to mark a contrast between the two populations, it remains the differences existed; if Arabs were black like their slaves, the only difference they would have put would be the dresses. Here they have different colours and differents features of face too. Egyptians also painted different colours of skin and it seems it was accurate enough to the ethnies they knew._

----------


## Angela

@Johannes,
Sometimes the line between "snarkiness" and personal insults is pretty fine, but the line is there, and you're crossing it. Cut it out.

----------


## Alan

> I agree with all of that except that I think that in southwestern Yemen there might have been some East African admixture or let's say gene flow back and forth between Yemen and Ethiopia/Eritrea from very ancient times as well as in the modern era. Without ancient dna I don't know how it could be quantified.
> 
> See: Kingdom of Aksum
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum
> 
> Still it seems that the majority of the admixture may indeed have taken place post the slave trade. 
> 
> There are also "ethnic" distinctions within Yemen. There is a separate "untouchable" caste of uncertain origin, and there are indeed "mulatto" looking people with relatively recent admixture who are subject to their own kind of discrimination. I doubt that the Yemenis who were involved in the Islamic conquests would have looked like either of these groups. 
> 
> ...


Funny coincidence, the author of the article about discrimination of SSA Yemenites, who is Yemenite herself, basically looks like how ancient author described the ancient Arabs, a small statured "Mediterranean" type.

This must have been the type of farmer(early farmers with a stronger Red Sea shift because of some 10% East African admixture) which evolved among the originale Semites in southern Levant before leaving for the Arabian Peninsula.


This is probably how the original Yemenites who settled in the region predominanlty looked like.

----------


## Johannes

> I was speaking about the general affiliation of former Arabs.
> I agree too with what you wrote. In southwestern Yemen, it is very possible that since ancient times, a population close to East-African was there; the Arabs got down from North towards South, what explains their 'europoid' principal element, to answer to Johannes. The nomadic Bedawins in yemen seemed very endogame so they showed almost no SSA african element, 70 years ago. In other populations, sedentized, there was already a mix, not only with SSA or EA for someones but also with higher %s of brachycephalic 'europoid' maybe from North Near-East. I've not the needed knowledge about Arabia history to go into details. I red even the Mongols could have had a light imput in some parts of the great so called arab territories, before Turcs. The Saudis seem a bit more crossed than the Yemeni Bedawins with maybe some drifts from endogamy among their higher classes.
> &; my feeling is that the true nod of first nomadic Arabs was not too far from the Sinai (could be confirmed by Y-E1b and Y-J1 subclades history?)


Please read posts 87 and 90. There it clearly explains that the Yemeni or southern Arabs had mixed with SSA since ancient times. Again I am not saying all looked like mulattoes -- some were but not all -- and many simply looked Semitic or Mediterranean. However, Yemenis have 80% or more J1!!! As the articles state, most of the SSA DNA came from females.

----------


## Johannes

[QUOTE=MOESAN;462691]


> Have you ever heard of "idealistic" portraits in paintings and sculpture???? If you do then you will know that the figures in most paintings and sculptures do not represent "real" reality. They are idealized. Get it? Just because you see a painting does not mean it represents actual reality. The Arabs could have been painted yellow or red and so does that mean they were yellow or red? Or what? do you think Arabs were white?[/QUOTE
> 
> _Sorry but you are going a bit too far with your arguing: even if the "white" skin on these paintings could be exagerated to mark a contrast between the two populations, it remains the differences existed; if Arabs were black like their slaves, the only difference they would have put would be the dresses. Here they have different colours and differents features of face too. Egyptians also painted different colours of skin and it seems it was accurate enough to the ethnies they knew._


OK sorry for the criticism but sometimes I wonder why people look at statues or paintings -- for example of Greeks or Romans or whatever -- and think they represent reality! They do not! All they do is to try to represent an idealized imagination of the people they represent. 

The Arabs in their height of power probably did not want to be represented as they were in their earlier times and tried to "idealize" their representations. For example, if the Arabs were in Spain or France they would have been represented as brown color by Europeans, but Arabs would have made themselves look "white" in order to try to pass as Europeans. White or light color represents power in almost every culture, except Africa. If you dont believe me why did all the Arab Caliphs of Spain married blond women and produced white -- blue--eyed--blond haired -- children after several generations?

----------


## LeBrok

> OK sorry for the criticism but sometimes I wonder why people look at statues or paintings -- for example of Greeks or Romans or whatever -- and think they represent reality! They do not! All they do is to try to represent an idealized imagination of the people they represent. 
> 
> The Arabs in their height of power probably did not want to be represented as they were in their earlier times and tried to "idealize" their representations. For example, if the Arabs were in Spain or France they would have been represented as brown color by Europeans, but Arabs would have made themselves look "white" in order to try to pass as Europeans.


Assuming that Arabs viewed Europeans as a superior race. I'm sure it didn't look like it in Dark and Middle Ages.






> White or light color represents power in almost every culture, except Africa. If you dont believe me why did all the Arab Caliphs of Spain married blond women and produced white -- blue--eyed--blond haired -- children after several generations?


 Didn't they have harems of women, not just one wife forever? Wouldn't you like a variety in your harem and throw in few blonds? For them it was just an exotic look, looking like a barbarian and infidel from the north.

----------


## Drac II

> Please read posts 87 and 90. There it clearly explains that the Yemeni or southern Arabs had mixed with SSA since ancient times. Again I am not saying all looked like mulattoes -- some were but not all -- and many simply looked Semitic or Mediterranean. However, Yemenis have 80% or more J1!!! As the articles state, *most of the SSA DNA came from females*.


Which would fit with slavery as well. Plus the papers you linked also do not dismiss the quite large later slave trade.

----------


## Drac II

> OK sorry for the criticism but sometimes I wonder why people look at statues or paintings -- for example of Greeks or Romans or whatever -- and think they represent reality! They do not! All they do is to try to represent an idealized imagination of the people they represent. 
> 
> The Arabs in their height of power probably did not want to be represented as they were in their earlier times and tried to "idealize" their representations. For example, if the Arabs were in Spain or France they would have been represented as brown color by Europeans, but Arabs would have made themselves look "white" in order to try to pass as Europeans. White or light color represents power in almost every culture, except Africa. If you dont believe me why did all the Arab Caliphs of Spain married blond women and produced white -- blue--eyed--blond haired -- children after several generations?


Maybe because anyone can plainly see that they look like the normal average humans who inhabit those areas. So no, they are not "idealized" anythings. People represented what they saw as best as they could. Even gods are often "humanized" in ancient art. Your type of argument would work in the case of gods with jackal heads or mythological half-human half-bull creatures, and the like obvious products of the imagination that nobody had actually seen to be able to try to portray them, but hardly with portrayals of actual people. 

Arabs consistently portrayed themselves as people with Caucasian features all throughout their history. You seem to think this is some sort of weird conspiracy by the Arabs to try to "whiten" themselves, but it is simply a reflection of reality. Rest assured that if they had been Negroid or heavily admixed with Negroids, their own representations of themselves would look quite different from the ones shown in the previous pages. Let me know when you find an ancient Yemeni representation of a human with Negroid features. I still have to see even one.

----------


## Johannes

> Assuming that Arabs viewed Europeans as a superior race. I'm sure it didn't look like it in Dark and Middle Ages.
> 
> Didn't they have harems of women, not just one wife forever? Wouldn't you like a variety in your harem and throw in few blonds? For them it was just an exotic look, looking like a barbarian and infidel from the north.


Arabs were grossly hypocritical. They had just graduated from being semi-barbaric camel drivers to conquerors and had absolutely no high culture. Their so called "superiority" was simply religious or they imagined themselves as superior (LOL). On the one hand they practiced endogamy and considered all white Europeans as inferior (sons of white women or muwalldun -- as they labeled them). But on the other hand when they wanted to steal the lands from the Goths and other Hispano-Romans they married almost exclusively Gothic women (most of Andalusi-Goths had been killed in battle) and then accepted the Nordic women as "Arabs." Thus, yes, Arabs considered Europeans as superior but at the same time as inferiors. By the 10th century the majority of the Arabs had disappeared as a phenotype. They had mixed mostly with Europeans. Then in the 13th century they were either exterminated or expelled or both.

Yes Arabs had harems but only if you were rich. It would have been extremely difficult for a common Berber or Arab to have a harem. If you were rich you could have four or maybe five women but not more. However, the caliph had hundreds of women but almost all were of Northern European origin.

----------


## LeBrok

> Arabs were grossly hypocritical. They had just graduated from being semi-barbaric camel drivers to conquerors and had absolutely no high culture. Their so called "superiority" was simply religious or they imagined themselves as superior (LOL).


I think you answered yourself:



> On the one hand they practiced endogamy and considered all white Europeans as inferior (sons of white women or muwalldun they labeled them).


 Even Amazon Jungle natives consider themselves chosen, special and a perfect race. Obviously the camel herders who became the lords of vast empire might felt superior and chosen by god.




> But on the other hand when they wanted to steal the lands from the Goths and other Hispano-Romans they married almost exclusively Gothic women (most of Andalusi-Goths had been killed in battle) and then accepted the Nordic women as "Arabs." Thus, yes, Arabs considered Europeans as superior but at the same time as inferiors. By the 10th century the majority of the Arabs had disappeared as a phenotype. They had mixed mostly with Europeans. Then in the 13th century they were either exterminated or expelled or both.


 Almost all marriages of rulers happened for alainces with neighbors and friends. If Goths were around, so be it with Goth's princesses.




> Yes Arabs had harems but only if you were rich. It would have been extremely difficult for a common Berber or Arab to have a harem. If you were rich you could have four or maybe five women but not more.


I'm sure we were talking about the rich Arab rulers.





> However, the caliph had hundreds of women but almost all were of Northern European origin.


 I didn't know you have a medieval list of harem women by race and origin?

----------


## Johannes

> @Johannes,
> Sometimes the line between "snarkiness" and personal insults is pretty fine, but the line is there, and you're crossing it. Cut it out.


Isn't "snarkiness" what you use with me and others when you debate? or am I wrong?

----------


## LeBrok

Actually, here is a list of the top, honorary wives of Turkish Sultans. List doesn't include ordinary harem women though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ttoman_sultans
Most are locals and neighboring countries. Seems political reasons. I didn't even see one from Northern Europe. One is from Kingdom of Poland, but not blond.


Here is a picture of Turkish harem painted in 17 hundreds by a local artist. I must be blind, no blonds!

http://jeannepompadour.tumblr.com/po...y-fazil-yildiz

----------


## Angela

Descriptions of the "beloved" in Arabic love poetry are remarkably consistent: long, curling dark hair, large dark eyes, sometimes "white" skin, sometimes "bright" skin, 
"as if the sun had thrown a mantle over it", deep red lips, small, white teeth, a long neck, and what could be described as a "voluptuous" body. (The descriptions are quite graphic.)

https://books.google.com/books?id=fl...rature&f=false

That remained the case even after the conquest of Spain. In fact, there is a notation of a man being criticized by his friends for an "inappropriate" choice for falling in love with a blonde girl. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=j8olAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=descript ions+of+female+beauty+in+medieval+Arabic+love+poet ry&source=bl&ots=ywbYSZ1e94&sig=ifdWnJHZmYdANYng-yGN6xzU9RU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMItOfVopD wxgIVyns-Ch0MBwK5#v=onepage&q=female%20beauty%20in%20mediev al%20Arabic%20love%20poetry&f=false

----------


## Johannes

> I'm sure we were talking about the rich Arab rulers. I didn't know you have a medieval list of harem women by race and origin?


I didn't just guess. It's obvious if you read the literature that Arabs in Spain preferred blonde-blue eyed women. Now if you want to be specific and try to find what every Arab did in every culture they occupied then you have to do research by yourself. Maybe the Arabs got their women from Atlantis? Or maybe from England, -- or better yet: Hollywood?  :Cool V:

----------


## LeBrok

> I didn't just guess. *It's obvious if you read the literature that Arabs in Spain preferred blonde-blue eyed women.* Now if you want to be specific and try to find what every Arab did in every culture they occupied then you have to do research by yourself. Maybe the Arabs got their women from Atlantis? Or maybe from England, -- or better yet: Hollywood?


Somehow you got a wrong impression of reality, like you wanted this to happen. Perhaps, because personally you put blond girls much higher on the pedestal of beauty? However this is not a universal thing. Others perceive beauty differently.

----------


## Angela

> I didn't just guess. It's obvious if you read the literature that Arabs in Spain preferred blonde-blue eyed women. Now if you want to be specific and try to find what every Arab did in every culture they occupied then you have to do research by yourself. Maybe the Arabs got their women from Atlantis? Or maybe from England, -- or better yet: Hollywood?


Do you just ignore historical facts that don't support your own personal beliefs? See, from my prior post:

"Descriptions of the "beloved" in Arabic love poetry are* remarkably consistent*: long, curling dark hair, large dark eyes, sometimes "white" skin, sometimes "bright" skin, 
"as if the sun had thrown a mantle over it", deep red lips, small, white teeth, a long neck, and what could be described as a "voluptuous" body. (The descriptions are quite graphic.)

https://books.google.com/books?id=fl...rature&f=false

That remained the case even after the conquest of Spain. In fact, there is a notation of a man being criticized by his friends for an "inappropriate" choice for falling in love with a blonde girl. 

https://books.google.com/books?id=j8olAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=descript ions+of+female+beauty+in+medieval+Arabic+love+poet ry&source=bl&ots=ywbYSZ1e94&sig=ifdWnJHZmYdANYng-yGN6xzU9RU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMItOfVopD wxgIVyns-Ch0MBwK5#v=onepage&q=female%20beauty%20in%20mediev al%20Arabic%20love%20poetry&f=false"

With propinquity I'm sure their standards started to become more all inclusive. That sometimes happens. It always happens when power relationships change.

----------


## Drac II

> Do you just ignore historical facts that don't support your own personal beliefs? See, from my prior post:
> 
> "Descriptions of the "beloved" in Arabic love poetry are* remarkably consistent*: long, curling dark hair, large dark eyes, sometimes "white" skin, sometimes "bright" skin, 
> "as if the sun had thrown a mantle over it", deep red lips, small, white teeth, a long neck, and what could be described as a "voluptuous" body. (The descriptions are quite graphic.)
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=fl...rature&f=false
> 
> That remained the case even after the conquest of Spain. In fact, there is a notation of a man being criticized by his friends for an "inappropriate" choice for falling in love with a blonde girl. 
> 
> ...


Based on the evidence cited in the linked source, I would actually go the next step and say that the Arab standard of beauty when it comes to skin tone was for the "white" (pale) skin tones. And we are not talking about the Arab aristocracy in Iberia, but about the Arabs from Arabia itself as well. This puts another heavy dent in Johannes' bizarre claims. If they had been dark skinned Negroids obviously Arabs would have had a preference for people with their own traits. In fact, Arabic literature is quite riddled with the opposite: extremely racist and offensive comments about black Africans.

----------


## Drac II

> Do you just ignore historical facts that don't support your own personal beliefs? See, from my prior post:
> 
> "Descriptions of the "beloved" in Arabic love poetry are* remarkably consistent*: long, curling dark hair, large dark eyes, sometimes "white" skin, sometimes "bright" skin, 
> "as if the sun had thrown a mantle over it", deep red lips, small, white teeth, a long neck, and what could be described as a "voluptuous" body. (The descriptions are quite graphic.)
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=fl...rature&f=false
> 
> That remained the case even after the conquest of Spain. In fact, there is a notation of a man being criticized by his friends for an "inappropriate" choice for falling in love with a blonde girl. 
> 
> ...


Based on the evidence cited in the linked source, I would actually go the next step and say that the Arab standard of beauty when it comes to skin pigmentation was for the "white" (pale) skin tones. And we are not talking just about the Arab aristocracy in Iberia, but about the Arabs from Arabia itself as well. This puts another heavy dent in Johannes' bizarre claims. If they had been dark skinned Negroids obviously Arabs would have had a preference for people with their own traits. In fact, Arabic literature is quite riddled with the opposite: extremely racist and offensive comments about black Africans.

----------


## Johannes

> Based on the evidence cited in the linked source, I would actually go the next step and say that the Arab standard of beauty when it comes to skin pigmentation was for the "white" (pale) skin tones. And we are not talking just about the Arab aristocracy in Iberia, but about the Arabs from Arabia itself as well. This puts another heavy dent in Johannes' bizarre claims. If they had been dark skinned Negroids obviously Arabs would have had a preference for people with their own traits. In fact, Arabic literature is quite riddled with the opposite: extremely racist and offensive comments about black Africans.


You are always distorting what I say or don't pay attention. I never said Arabs were all black. I don't know why you keep harping about this. I only said that some Yemenis probably had some people that looked like mulattoes. This is why I showed you the pictures. But you distort everything and then accuse me of saying they were all black. All I know is that in Andalusia or Spain the Arab nobility preferred northern girls with white skin, blue yes, and blond hair. That's is all. I hope you finally get it and stop trying to distort my statements.

----------


## Johannes

> Do you just ignore historical facts that don't support your own personal beliefs? See, from my prior post:
> 
> "Descriptions of the "beloved" in Arabic love poetry are* remarkably consistent*: long, curling dark hair, large dark eyes, sometimes "white" skin, sometimes "bright" skin, 
> "as if the sun had thrown a mantle over it", deep red lips, small, white teeth, a long neck, and what could be described as a "voluptuous" body. (The descriptions are quite graphic.)
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=fl...rature&f=false
> 
> That remained the case even after the conquest of Spain. In fact, there is a notation of a man being criticized by his friends for an "inappropriate" choice for falling in love with a blonde girl. 
> 
> ...


OK I see where the problem is: I meant Arab nobility not common Arabs. This happened in Spain. I am sure it might have been different with the Turks. But who knows?

----------


## Drac II

> You are always distorting what I say or don't pay attention. I never said Arabs were all black. I don't know why you keep harping about this. I only said that some Yemenis probably had some people that looked like mulattoes. This is why I showed you the pictures. But you distort everything and then accuse me of saying they were all black. All I know is that in Andalusia or Spain the Arab nobility preferred northern girls with white skin, blue yes, and blond hair. That's is all. I hope you finally get it and stop trying to distort my statements.


Your original statement was that Arabs were either blacks or heavily admixed with them since ancient times. You have been modifying this claim since you have been shown evidence to the contrary.

----------


## Degredado

"Arab" is as much of an umbrella term as "Latin", really. We all know there are black/mulatto Arabs in North Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia; there are Arabs from Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq who could easily pass for being European; and you have everything in between, all over the Arab world. We should keep in mind that the intermixing between "original" Arabs and Africans (both North Africans and Sub-Saharans) only really began with the Islamic conquests. The big question is, how promptly were the conquered/enslaved Arabized populations accepted as legitimate Arabs? If this assimilation process began immediately after the conquests and slave trade in the 7th century, then we could assume that "Arabs" already had some African ancestry as early as the Umayadd period. But my guess would be that the Umayadd conquerors of Spain were almost purely Levantine/Semitic, probably looking like modern-day Lebanese, while the Berbers who accompanied them and of course the later Almoravids and Almohads came in all shades, as they carried a strong NW African element (and a little bit of SSA) in addition to their Middle Eastern component.

----------


## Drac II

> "Arab" is as much of an umbrella term as "Latin", really. We all know there are black/mulatto Arabs in North Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia; there are Arabs from Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq who could easily pass for being European; and you have everything in between, all over the Arab world. We should keep in mind that the intermixing between "original" Arabs and Africans (both North Africans and Sub-Saharans) only really began with the Islamic conquests. The big question is, how promptly were the conquered/enslaved Arabized populations accepted as legitimate Arabs? If this assimilation process began immediately after the conquests and slave trade in the 7th century, then we could assume that "Arabs" already had some African ancestry as early as the Umayadd period. But my guess would be that the Umayadd conquerors of Spain were almost purely Levantine/Semitic, probably looking like modern-day Lebanese, while the Berbers who accompanied them and of course the later Almoravids and Almohads came in all shades, as they carried a strong NW African element (and a little bit of SSA) in addition to their Middle Eastern component.


Judging by the fact that there were even African slave revolts against the Arabs during the early Islamic period I would say that their integration into Muslim society must have been rather low. Arabic literature also has plenty of very offensive and racist remarks about black Africans, even in popular literature like "The Arabian Nights" black Africans are scorned and treated like slaves and idiots. It does not give the impression at all that early Islam was very embracing of black Africans. The islamization of Berbers is a different matter because they were not black.

----------


## Degredado

> Judging by the fact that there were even African slave revolts against the Arabs during the early Islamic period I would say that their integration into Muslim society must have been rather low. Arabic literature also has plenty of very offensive and racist remarks about black Africans, even in popular literature like "The Arabian Nights" black Africans are scorned and treated like slaves and idiots. It does not give the impression at all that early Islam was very embracing of black Africans. The islamization of Berbers is a different matter because they were not black.


That's true, but let's not forget that racism has never quite prevented "racists" (especially males) from having plenty of children - legitimate or not - with people of other races.

----------


## Johannes

> That's true, but let's not forget that racism has never quite prevented "racists" (especially males) from having plenty of children - legitimate or not - with people of other races.


That's right. After the so-called conquest of southern Iberia the Arabs in Andalusia constantly insulted any Christian who had a light complexion and hair by calling them "sons of white women" or "sons of slaves" or "weak or effeminite" but at the same time would try to buy a northern "slave" girl Iberia or Germany and add her to his harem or marry a Gothic or light skinned woman in order to make themselves look "white." The Arabs were very proud of their race or tribe but it did not stop them from mixing their blood with blonde or light skinned women. By the 10th century the Arab Emirs (later Caliphs) had mixed so much with northern Iberian women that they had to dye their hair and beards black in order to look "Arab."

----------


## Johannes

> "Arab" is as much of an umbrella term as "Latin", really. We all know there are black/mulatto Arabs in North Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia; there are Arabs from Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq who could easily pass for being European; and you have everything in between, all over the Arab world. We should keep in mind that the intermixing between "original" Arabs and Africans (both North Africans and Sub-Saharans) only really began with the Islamic conquests. The big question is, how promptly were the conquered/enslaved Arabized populations accepted as legitimate Arabs? If this assimilation process began immediately after the conquests and slave trade in the 7th century, then we could assume that "Arabs" already had some African ancestry as early as the Umayadd period. But my guess would be that the Umayadd conquerors of Spain were almost purely Levantine/Semitic, probably looking like modern-day Lebanese, while the Berbers who accompanied them and of course the later Almoravids and Almohads came in all shades, as they carried a strong NW African element (and a little bit of SSA) in addition to their Middle Eastern component.


Wrong: Only the Syrians would have been "Levantine/Semitic" with a strong dose of Greeks and Italians. The Yemenis or southern Arabs would have been mixed to a certain extent. Even if the Arabs came in all kinds colors or phenotypes, there must have been some mixture with SSA. It has been a long time since I read _Baxter Wolf, Kenneth (8 May 2014). Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain. Cambridge University Press. pp. 14–15. ISBN 1107634814, but I remember somewhere he uses an example of an Arabized Gothic writer who complained about how the Arabs in Andalusia during the 8-9th centuries constantly discriminated against the Goths and stated that "the Arabs (or Muslims) have wooly hair while us (Goths) have straight or wavy hair." This is clear proof that Arabs had some SSA DNA already in the early Middle Ages. The writer's name was (I believe) Ibn al-Qutiyya. A MUwallad historian of the Muslim Invasion and a descendant of King Wittiza._

----------


## MOESAN

> Please read posts 87 and 90. There it clearly explains that the Yemeni or southern Arabs had mixed with SSA since ancient times. Again I am not saying all looked like mulattoes -- some were but not all -- and many simply looked Semitic or Mediterranean. However, Yemenis have 80% or more J1!!! As the articles state, most of the SSA DNA came from females.


You don't read acutely what I wrote, Johannes:
Bedawins were surely the most genuine Arabs in Yemen, I'm not saying true Arabs were autochtonous to Arabia, even lesser in Yemen!!! other Yemenites, sedented, are not "pure" Arabs on the Bedawin model, they show connexions NOT ONLY with SSA people but in some cases with Veddoid Indians; in towns, some show strong connexions with North Near-Eastern people; even Mongols did some intrusions in arabic lands! But ofr me the Bedawins are a good example of what were the Arabs in the Middle Ages;
some autosomes studies show two sorts of Bedawins, different enough, but they don't precise the geographic or ethnic afiliation;
to conclude, the autosomes of Yemenite Jews show almost NO SSA admixture! And I'm tempted to think these very southern Jews are a remnant of primitive Semites, with only a little bit more of 'west-asian' compared to ordinary Bedawins or Arabs, what is not surprising.
No offense

----------


## Johannes

> Somehow you got a wrong impression of reality, like you wanted this to happen. Perhaps, because personally you put blond girls much higher on the pedestal of beauty? However this is not a universal thing. Others perceive beauty differently.


Of course you are right. Beauty is a subjective thing. BUT I am only talking about the Emirs and Caliphs of Andalusia. They prefered blondes, whether from Spain or Northern Europe. However, I am sure they had a variety of different types of beauties on the harem, but blondes were probably the majority. The Arab historians and writers mentioned this and it's in all the books written on Muslim Spain.

----------


## Drac II

> Wrong: Only the Syrians would have been "Levantine/Semitic" with a strong dose of Greeks and Italians. The Yemenis or southern Arabs would have been mixed to a certain extent. Even if the Arabs came in all kinds colors or phenotypes, there must have been some mixture with SSA. It has been a long time since I read _Baxter Wolf, Kenneth (8 May 2014). Christian Martyrs in Muslim Spain. Cambridge University Press. pp. 14–15. ISBN 1107634814, but I remember somewhere he uses an example of an Arabized Gothic writer who complained about how the Arabs in Andalusia during the 8-9th centuries constantly discriminated against the Goths and stated that "the Arabs (or Muslims) have wooly hair while us (Goths) have straight or wavy hair." This is clear proof that Arabs had some SSA DNA already in the early Middle Ages. The writer's name was (I believe) Ibn al-Qutiyya. A MUwallad historian of the Muslim Invasion and a descendant of King Wittiza._


There is no such statement in that book:

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.e..._Spain,_EN.pdf

Plus the Arabs characterized black Africans as "wooly haired", not themselves: 

https://books.google.com/books?id=g2...ndage.&f=false

The Arabs considered blacks to be suited by nature for the lowest forms of bondage. One tenth-century Arabic account describes them as "malodorous, stinking, wooly-haired, with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions". Ibn Khaldun considered black Africans to be the only people who accepted slavery "because of their low degree of humanity and their proximity to the animal stage". The enslavement of blacks was as unproblematic as the domestication of beasts of burden. The Muslims enslaved Christians and Jews as well, but Africans were apparently treated much worse. (page 32)

So this is actually more evidence against your strange claims, not in favor of.

----------


## Johannes

> There is no such statement in that book:
> 
> http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.e..._Spain,_EN.pdf
> 
> Plus the Arabs characterized black Africans as "wooly haired", not themselves: 
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=g2...ndage.&f=false
> 
> The Arabs considered blacks to be suited by nature for the lowest forms of bondage. One tenth-century Arabic account describes them as "malodorous, stinking, wooly-haired, with uneven limbs, deficient minds, and depraved passions". Ibn Khaldun considered black Africans to be the only people who accepted slavery "because of their low degree of humanity and their proximity to the animal stage". The enslavement of blacks was as unproblematic as the domestication of beasts of burden. The Muslims enslaved Christians and Jews as well, but Africans were apparently treated much worse. (page 32)
> ...


Yes yes. I know right now I dont have the luxury of cross checking the facts like you do but I have read much more than you and I know there is a statement that exists but I just need to find it. I know it exist because it I rememeber it. 

Arabs were not white, OK? They may be "caucasians" but they were dark-skinned and had mixed with SSA (at least the Yemenis had) and did not look anything like Europeans. Why you argue about them being fair skinned or like Europeans is so ridiculous, it's amazing. Only a stubborn guy like you can do this.

----------


## Johannes

> You don't read acutely what I wrote, Johannes: Bedawins were surely the most genuine Arabs in Yemen, I'm not saying true Arabs were autochtonous to Arabia, even lesser in Yemen!!! other Yemenites, sedented, are not "pure" Arabs on the Bedawin model, they show connexions NOT ONLY with SSA people but in some cases with Veddoid Indians; in towns, some show strong connexions with North Near-Eastern people; even Mongols did some intrusions in arabic lands! But ofr me the Bedawins are a good example of what were the Arabs in the Middle Ages; some autosomes studies show two sorts of Bedawins, different enough, but they don't precise the geographic or ethnic afiliation; to conclude, the autosomes of Yemenite Jews show almost NO SSA admixture! And I'm tempted to think these very southern Jews are a remnant of primitive Semites, with only a little bit more of 'west-asian' compared to ordinary Bedawins or Arabs, what is not surprising. No offense


Yes you are right: however even the Bedouins Arabs and Jews have SSA mixture. According to the new Allentoft and Haak Admixture Analysis (2015) Bedouins have two kinds: A and B: *Bedouin A has 70-73% Middle Eastern, 16%-19% European, and 9%-11% SSA*. *Bedouin B have 90%- 92% Middle Eastern, 4%-5% European, and 4%-5% SSA.* Yemenis have a very similar amount of SSA as Bedouins: *Yemenis have 70%-73% Middle Eastern, 13%-15% European, and 10%-15% SSA*. *Yemeni Jews have 82%-87% Middle Eastern, 8%-14% European, and 4% SSA*. So yes, Bedouin Jews do have a more pure Semitic DNA but they still have some the black DNA. It appears that Bedouin B and Bedouin Jews have almost exact DNA and proves that they were the same people. However, the still had black DNA. It's not significant.

----------


## Degredado

Johannes, why does it seem so inconceivable to you that many Arabs, especially from the Levant, look no different from (southern) Europeans? Not every Arab is brown-skinned, curly-haired and hook-nosed, you know. Consider this: even today, when Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians have around 5% SSA admixture on average, most of them would still fit in in Greece, Iberia or Italy - now imagine their ancestors 13-14 centuries ago, before the Arabic slave trade.

----------


## Johannes

> Johannes, why does it seem so inconceivable to you that many Arabs, especially from the Levant, look no different from (southern) Europeans? Not every Arab is brown-skinned, curly-haired and hook-nosed, you know. Consider this: even today, when Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians have around 5% SSA admixture on average, most of them would still fit in in Greece, Iberia or Italy - now imagine their ancestors 13-14 centuries ago, before the Arabic slave trade.


Did you read the post 126? In there I stated that, yes, Levantine Arabs did look very similar to southern Italians or Greeks. When they entered Iberia they probably passed for Iberian or Hispano-Romans in Andalusia. But Arabs at that time probably had much more SSA than 5%. Why dont you check out Allentoft and Haak analysis? It shows Yemenis as 10-15% black and Syrians as 6-7% Black. I know wooly hair does not determine "blackness" but most Arabs had curly or wooly hair.

----------


## Degredado

> Did you read the post 126? In there I stated that, yes, Levantine Arabs did look very similar to southern Italians or Greeks. When they entered Iberia they probably passed for Iberian or Hispano-Romans in Andalusia. But Arabs at that time probably had much more SSA than 5%. Why dont you check out Allentoft and Haak analysis? It shows Yemenis as 10-15% black and Syrians as 6-7% Black. I know wooly hair does not determine "blackness" but most Arabs had curly or wooly hair.


But what makes you think Arabs had more SSA admixture back then than they do today? What would have caused this "deafricanization" of Arabs in the Middle East? The Crusaders alone? Surely not. All logic and historical evidence indicate that Arabs have a stronger SSA element today, after their thousand-year slave trade, than in the 8th century.

----------


## Sile

> Johannes, why does it seem so inconceivable to you that many Arabs, especially from the Levant, look no different from (southern) Europeans? Not every Arab is brown-skinned, curly-haired and hook-nosed, you know. Consider this: even today, when Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians have around 5% SSA admixture on average, most of them would still fit in in Greece, Iberia or Italy - now imagine their ancestors 13-14 centuries ago, before the Arabic slave trade.


Because the levant was not always Arab.................do you know when Arab went from the southern arabian peninsula and headed into the Levant.?

Some have guessed that only at the demise of the Romans in Egypt was their any Arab migration ( into Egypt ) of any note.

----------


## joeyc

> But what makes you think Arabs had more SSA admixture back then than they do today? What would have caused this "deafricanization" of Arabs in the Middle East? The Crusaders alone? Surely not. All logic and historical evidence indicate that Arabs have a stronger SSA element today, after their thousand-year slave trade, than in the 8th century.


Modern Levantines have loads of Anatolian admixture. So do Iraqis who have both Iranians ans Caucasus ancestries.

Ancient Levantines looked no different from modern ones and they were totally different from Southern Europeans. I've met many Palestinians and Syrians IRL, mostly refugees, and they looked no different from lighter North Africans to me. Sure a few could pass but most look "Arab" because they are Arabs.

----------


## Drac II

> But what makes you think Arabs had more SSA admixture back then than they do today? What would have caused this "deafricanization" of Arabs in the Middle East? The Crusaders alone? Surely not. All logic and historical evidence indicate that Arabs have a stronger SSA element today, after their thousand-year slave trade, than in the 8th century.


When it comes to historical issues, don't expect much common sense and logic from "Johannes". Your above statement seems self-evident to anyone, but not to him. By his "logic" we should also expect Brazil, USA, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, etc. to be less influenced by sub-Saharan Africans today than 400 years ago.

----------


## Drac II

> Yes yes. I know right now I dont have the luxury of cross checking the facts like you do but I have read much more than you and I know there is a statement that exists but I just need to find it. I know it exist because it I rememeber it. 
> 
> Arabs were not white, OK? They may be "caucasians" but they were dark-skinned and had mixed with SSA (at least the Yemenis had) and did not look anything like Europeans. Why you argue about them being fair skinned or like Europeans is so ridiculous, it's amazing. Only a stubborn guy like you can do this.


Then perhaps you should first find the actual reference you think you remember instead of attributing it to a source where it is not found.

I am still waiting for you to find me even one example of ancient Yemeni artwork showing a human face with sub-Saharan African features.

Curly hair is not exactly the same as "wooly-hair". Curly hair is not uncommon among Caucasians. The historical evidence shows that to the Arabs "wooly-hair" was something foreign and exotic which they mentioned when describing black Africans. Also, the standard of beauty in Arabic literature shows that they favored the lighter skin tones, while it also shows that they were very prejudiced against black Africans. This is what the actual evidence shows, not what you claim.

----------


## Johannes

> Johannes, why does it seem so inconceivable to you that many Arabs, especially from the Levant, look no different from (southern) Europeans? Not every Arab is brown-skinned, curly-haired and hook-nosed, you know. Consider this: even today, when Syrians, Lebanese and Jordanians have around 5% SSA admixture on average, most of them would still fit in in Greece, Iberia or Italy - now imagine their ancestors 13-14 centuries ago, before the Arabic slave trade.


I never said ALL Arabs were brown-skinned or had wooly hair. I know there are all kinds of variations among the Arabs. I even showed pictures that showed the differences between them. However, all Arabs are not just Syrians, Jordanians, and Lebanese (of course some Arabs from the Levant pass for Southern Europeans!). I was talking about Yemenis (the ones who entered Spain). Drac has distorted what I was saying by claiming that I said ALL Arabs are black or part black. But that is not what I said. If you read post #87 you will see evidence from journals studying Yemenis and Ethiopians that Arabs from the SW of the Saudi peninsula already had SSA before the 8th century. We dont know how much it was but it was not significant.

----------


## Johannes

> But what makes you think Arabs had more SSA admixture back then than they do today? What would have caused this "deafricanization" of Arabs in the Middle East? The Crusaders alone? Surely not. All logic and historical evidence indicate that Arabs have a stronger SSA element today, after their thousand-year slave trade, than in the 8th century.


I never said Arabs had "more SSA mixture back then than they do today." All I have been saying is that the Yemenis and probably some other Saudi Arabs had already mixed with Ethiopians and other blacks before the 8th century. The southern Arabs had less SSA DNA back then than they do today but they had mixed with blacks. How much we will never know. Either way the Arabs who conquered Iberia were dark-skinned and many had curly hair and from them the myth of the Arabs as the "Black-a-Moor" developed. If the Arabs were so fair-skinned as Drac thinks this myth would never have developed.

----------


## Johannes

Maybe wooly haired is an exaggeration but the Yemenis and Syrians probably had hair something in between, such as, these photos.

----------


## joeyc

Galley of Levantines.

http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/...-people?page=1

----------


## Johannes

> Because the levant was not always Arab.................do you know when Arab went from the southern arabian peninsula and headed into the Levant.?
> 
> Some have guessed that only at the demise of the Romans in Egypt was their any Arab migration ( into Egypt ) of any note.


That is right: the Arabs are mentioned during the Roman and even back in Hellenistic times. But Arabs only existed in the margins of the Levant -- they were traders and peddlers in the deserts and they were not representative of the Levantie population. However, after they conquered the Levant in the 7th century their culture and language dominated the Levant and they added to the phenotypes.

----------


## Degredado

> Galley of Levantines.
> 
> http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/...-people?page=1


The posters on that "Italic roots" forum, oh dear. Jersey Shore meets Stormfront. They might as well post pictures of crowds in New Orleans after Katrina, or of the Baltimore riots, and claim these pictures as representative of the American population. 

It is notorious that the upper classes of Levantine countries have a "fairer" look than the one you see among these Hezbollah radicals; why? Possibly the effect of a rather old "natural selection" process, as we all know that fair skin and delicate features are held in high standard in the Middle East (and people who have a little more money can obviously be more picky about their mating options). 

Anyway, I would estimate that around half the people in those pictures, if they wore Gucci shirts, Armani sunglasses, had a fashionable haircut and a Cristiano Ronaldoesque demeanour, could *still* pass for being at least Sicilian.

----------


## joeyc

Hahahaha. South America is the only place in this world where Levantines are considered as white. I bet that you are part Levantine too, just like many Brazilian or Argentinian "whites".

I remind you that Levantines were officially considered as non white and barred from admission in the US.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917

Or better watch for the Cronula racial war. 5000 White Anglo Saxons attacked anyone with brown skin, after a bunch of Lebanese had raped a woman. People from Bangladesh were mistaken for Lebanese and attacked too. LOL

----------


## Degredado

> Hahahaha. South America is the only place in this world where Levantines are considered as white. I bet that you are part Levantine too, just like many Brazilian or Argentinian "whites".
> 
> I remind you that Levantines were officially considered as non white and barred from admission in the US.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1917
> 
> Or better watch for the Cronula racial war. 5000 White Anglo Saxons attacked anyone with brown skin, after a bunch of Lebanese had raped a woman. People from Bangladesh were mistaken for Lebanese and attacked too. LOL


LOL, I had a feeling that you would dramatically prove my point about that forum’s members on your following post.

Don’t get all worked up, Joey C. Life isn’t some kind of contest about who has less melanin. Unless you’re a neonazi, of course. By the way, no country holds any monopoly over the accuracy of the definition of races. Everyone knows that the United States’ historical views on race are a complete abomination, no matter how great a country it may be. But if you want to get legal and technical, aren’t Middle Eastern people considered white in the US census?

For the record, you really might be surprised by the amount of your idolized Anglo-Saxons who do not consider Italians white either, preferring to ignorantly lump Italians in with the generic wop/wog ethnicity instead. You shouldn’t seek their approval so desperately, it’s their ancestors that used to bow to yours. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

Reading homework  :Good Job:

----------


## Johannes

> Anyway, I would estimate that around half the people in those pictures, if they wore Gucci shirts, Armani sunglasses, had a fashionable haircut and a Cristiano Ronaldoesque demeanour, could *still* pass for being at least Sicilian.


After looking at the Levantine gallery I revised my opinions of them: nope, the majority don't look like Italians or Greeks (some do, especially the Lebanese and Syrians). Even with Gucci shirts and clean shaven they will not pass for Europeans. Sorry.

----------


## joeyc

Poor Degregado he wishes so much that Arabs were white...

The immigration act of 1924 hit hard all Europeans, not just Italians.

Post any evidence that Italians were officially considered as non white in the US or Australia.

----------


## Johannes

> Poor Degregado he wishes so much that Arabs were white...
> 
> The immigration act of 1924 hit hard all Europeans, not just Italians.
> 
> Post any evidence that Italians were officially considered as non white in the US or Australia.


So does Drac. He thinks they looked exactly like they were portrayed in paintings by Muslims with light or white skin. Amazing.

----------


## Johannes

> Everyone knows that the United States’ historical views on race are a complete abomination, no matter how great a country it may be. But if you want to get legal and technical, aren’t Middle Eastern people considered white in the US census?
> 
> For the record, you really might be surprised by the amount of your idolized Anglo-Saxons who do not consider Italians white either, preferring to ignorantly lump Italians in with the generic wop/wog ethnicity instead. You shouldn’t seek their approval so desperately, it’s their ancestors that used to bow to yours. 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924 Reading homework


In The US people from North Africa, the Middle East, and India are considered "white" for census purposes (to make it easier to count) but are not considered white in the legal or "normal" sense. They will be put in the "white but other" category.

The Immigration Act of 1924 aimed at restricting immigrants from southern Europe, eastern Europe, Africa, Latin America, and Middle East. As for Europeans it would have restricted more than half of Europe's population (it aimed at Spaniards, Portuguese, Italians, and Slavs -- maybe even French?). I don't think it was aimed specifically at northern Italians and Slavs. But since the vast majority of Italians came from the south and Sicily they were discrimminated against because they did not look "European" (Germanic) and many formed mafias (or corrupt businesses). The Slavs (who were/are white Europeans) were discriminated against because the Russian Empire became communist (Soviet Union) and because of their poverty.

----------


## Johannes

> Poor Degregado he wishes so much that Arabs were white...
> 
> The immigration act of 1924 hit hard all Europeans, not just Italians.
> 
> Post any evidence that Italians were officially considered as non white in the US or Australia.


In the US during the late 19th and early 20th century Italians and Jews were not considered white. They were put in "other" categories. But after WWII and the Nazi atrocities they changed them to "white." Now all non-black Muslims and Hispanics (who are mostly Native American Indians) are also considered "white."

----------


## joeyc

Evidence??? Also the Arabs were barred from immigrating in the US from 1917 to 1965.

----------


## John Doe

Well according to the 1924 Immigration act also known as the *Johnson–Reed Act, limited immigration from southern and eastern Europe (in response to the massive immigration from those areas in the late 19th century and early 20th century), and excluded immigration from Asia and Africa, this act was also created to encourage immigration from Britain and Ireland. Such laws were also created in Australia as part of the white Australia policy to stimulate mainly Anglo-Celtic immigration.*

----------


## joeyc

So only Scots and English are white in Europe, aren't they?

----------


## John Doe

According to late 19th century WASP Americans only Britons, Irish Protestants and Scandinavians were really white.

----------


## DuPidh

> So only Scots and English are white in Europe, aren't they?


The term white is not accurate in describing populations of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia. The Americans have invented the term Caucasian which is more accurate to my point of view to describe this populations as a whole. I think the Irish or English use the word wog( I think in a derogatory way) to describe non Anglo- sakson populations of Europe. And yes Italians are strikingly different from Northern Europeans, why then should we characterize as the same?
I have seen Italians and Balkans with an Indian look or Arab look. Why this people should be called white, because they live in an area where there are some whites living.?
Don't get me wrong Italians have contributed greatly in the Anglosakson culture. Italian influence is everywhere. But describing southern Europeans as racially identical with Northern's is not accurate.

----------


## Degredado

> According to late 19th century WASP Americans only Britons, Irish Protestants and Scandinavians were really white.


Even Germans and Irish were considered non-white in the US at some point, lol. Apparently people in those days imagined that the English and Scots spontaneously sprang out of the soil in Great Britain, having no real link to the peoples on the continent (except for the ever-romanticized Vikings and Saxons).

----------


## Degredado

Anyway, I think Angela is about to yell at us to get back on topic  :Laughing:

----------


## DuPidh

> Even Germans and Irish were considered non-white in the US at some point, lol. Apparently people in those days imagined that the English and Scots spontaneously sprang out of the soil in Great Britain, having no real link to the peoples on the continent (except for the ever-romanticized Vikings and Saxons).


There was not tv, radio, not many books around, not to many educated people at that time so there was a lot of ignorance around. So whatever was done or said at that time is history. Europeans of South and North are two hands of the same body. Southern Europeans are the right hand.

----------


## Johannes

> So only Scots and English are white in Europe, aren't they?


As for the "Levantine" DNA Italians have significant levels: According to Eupedia Italians have 16-23% J2 -- the Levantine marker. They also have 14% E1b1 (21% in Sicily) and 3-4% J1, so combined they will come out to be very similar to Syrians (Syrians have more 30% J1 but 17% J2 and 12% E1b1) and Lebanese. So if Italians have 20% J1, 4% J1, and 16% E1b1 that will give them 40% Eastern Mediterrenran DNA. Thus Italians are not true Europeans.

----------


## Johannes

> Even Germans and Irish were considered non-white in the US at some point, lol. Apparently people in those days imagined that the English and Scots spontaneously sprang out of the soil in Great Britain, having no real link to the peoples on the continent (except for the ever-romanticized Vikings and Saxons).


That is not true. Irish and Germans were always considered white. They were considered not as superior to Anglo-Saxons.

----------


## John Doe

> As for the "Levantine" DNA Italians have significant levels: According to Eupedia Italians have 16-23% J2 -- the Levantine marker. They also have 14% E1b1 (21% in Sicily) and 3-4% J1, so combined they will come out to be very similar to Syrians (Syrians have more 30% J1 but 17% J2 and 12% E1b1) and Lebanese. So if Italians have 20% J1, 4% J1, and 16% E1b1 that will give them 40% Eastern Mediterrenran DNA. Thus Italians are not true Europeans.


Italians aren't a genetically homogeneous group, you'll find an Italian from Lombardy and an Italian from Palermo to be quite genetically different. That aside, you can't determine a population's background and relation to other groups only with uniparental markers, you'll have to look at Autosomal DNA and Autosomal DNA shows that most Italians north of Rome plot alongside other mainland Europeans with Sicilians plotting alongside Ashkenazi Jews and Maltese in the gap between Europe and the near east.

----------


## Johannes

> So only Scots and English are white in Europe, aren't they?


If you really want to get technical only the Northern Europeans are white, including most Slavs, Northern Spanish, Northen Italian, and Northern Porutguese as well, but not the rest.

----------


## John Doe

> If you really want to get technical only the Northern Europeans are white, including most Slavs, Northern Spanish, Northen Italian, and Northern Porutguese as well, but not the rest.


The definition of white has changed so much, it's irrelevant these days.

----------


## John Doe

> That is not true. Irish and Germans were always considered white. They were considered not as superior to Anglo-Saxons.


No, the Irish and Germans were considered non white because they were predominantly Catholic. The Germans also received extra hate during WW1, but in post WW2 it all changed.

----------


## Alan

> According to late 19th century WASP Americans only Britons, Irish Protestants and Scandinavians were really white.


Basically the whole genetically Germano_Celtic world. From France on it's southern to Germany on it's western, Scandinavia on it's northern and Ireland on it's western borders. 

This is one of the many reasons why "white" is a useless and non scientific term, because in history it has changed it's meanings several times. And it still does.

----------


## Johannes

> Modern Levantines have loads of Anatolian admixture. So do Iraqis who have both Iranians ans Caucasus ancestries.
> 
> Ancient Levantines looked no different from modern ones and they were totally different from Southern Europeans. I've met many Palestinians and Syrians IRL, mostly refugees, and they looked no different from lighter North Africans to me. Sure a few could pass but most look "Arab" because they are Arabs.


Italians also have loads of Anatolian DNA. I disaggree that southern Europeans looked totally different form ancient Levantines. By the end of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age the Greeks, Illyrians, and other peoples from the southern Balkans had significant amounts of J2 and E1b1. So they must have looked similar. If you think the ancient Greeks were blue-eyed Aryans you are mistaken. Levantines are also not "Arab" by DNA (although they are Semitic). They are culturally "Arab." Most Levantines are a mix like the Italians and Greeks.

----------


## Johannes

> No, the Irish and Germans were considered non white because they were predominantly Catholic. The Germans also received extra hate during WW1, but in post WW2 it all changed.


So what? I have taught US History and I never read about this. You must be confused. They were not considered "Anglo-Saxons" but certainly were considered white! Yes the Irish were called "white-niggers." But that was not a race-based degredation. It was economical. Catholicism had nothing to do with race. Germans received hate because we fought against them not because they were considered not white.

----------


## Alan

> Italians also have loads of Anatolian DNA. I disaggree that southern Europeans looked totally different form ancient Levantines. By the end of the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age the Greeks, Illyrians, and other peoples from the southern Balkans had significant amounts of J2 and E1b1. So they must have looked similar. If you think the ancient Greeks were blue-eyed Aryans you are mistaken. Lebntines are also not "Arab" by DNA (although they are Semitic). They are culturally "Arab." Most Levantines are a mix like the Italians and Greeks.


*All* of Europe has 30 to 80% Neolithic and Bronze/Iron Age Near Eastern ancestry. Only some Europeans have early Mesolithic ancestry which also came from West and South_Central Asia some thousand years earlier by the way.

SO I don't get the point of you and joey. ancient Near Eastern people were as different to modern people of the region as ancient Europeans are to modern Europeans.

the Anatolian farmer sample we have is genetically identical to ancient Europeans and were genetically closer to modern Sardinians, Italians and Iberians as to modern Near Easterners.

Even modern Scandinavians derive 30-40% of their ancestry from these Near Eastern creal farmers. and additional ~8% from West Asian herders.

----------


## Degredado

> So what? I have taught US History and I never read about this. You must be confused. They were not considered Anglo-Saxons" but certainly were considered white! Yes the irish were called "white-niggers." But that was not a race-based degredation. It was economical. Catholicism had nothing to do with race. Germans received hate because we fought against them not because they were considered not white.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States#Germ an_Americans

_"Large numbers of Germans migrated to North America between the 1680s and 1760s. Many settled in the English colony of Pennsylvania. In the 18th century, many persons of English descent harbored resentment towards the increasing number of German settlers. Benjamin Franklin in "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.", complained about the increasing influx of German Americans, stating that they had a negative influence on the early United States. The only exception were Germans of Saxon descent "who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased"._
_Unlike most European immigrant groups, whose acceptance as white came gradually over the course of the late 19th century (that is, in U.S. colloquial definitions, since all Europeans were white by legal U.S. definition), German immigrants quickly became accepted as white.__[11]"_


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defini...rish_Americans

_"In the 18th century Irish immigrants had the same rights and privileges as all other European settlers. Irish Americans were not always considered white.[12]__ In fact, up until the dawn of the 20th Century, some Americans did not consider the Irish to be white, and even after most did accept them as such, significant amounts of prejudice still continued for a few decades afterwards in many places."_


http://www.dialoginternational.com/d...anklin-on.html

Benjamin Franklin's views on Germans (and on several other European ethnic groups):
_"Those who come hither are generally of the most ignorant Stupid Sort of their own Nation…and as few of the English understand the German Language, and so cannot address them either from the Press or Pulpit, ’tis almost impossible to remove any prejudices they once entertain…Not being used to Liberty, they know not how to make a modest use of it…I remember when they modestly declined intermeddling in our Elections, but now they come in droves, and carry all before them, except in one or two Counties...In short unless the stream of their importation could be turned from this to other colonies, as you very judiciously propose, they will soon so out number us, that all the advantages we have will not in My Opinion be able to preserve our language, and even our Government will become precarious."_
_"Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion._ 

_24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind."_

It's clear that throughout early US history, Germans (and the Irish, and even Swedes) were essentially regarded as swarthy, stupid, non-white people who represented a threat to the United States' "pure English" race, culture, language, values, institutions etc. Considering that even enlightened Americans of the time (Franklin) had this perception, we can guess that the common people held similar views, or were perhaps even more prejudiced.

----------


## Johannes

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States#Germ an_Americans
> 
> _"Large numbers of Germans migrated to North America between the 1680s and 1760s. Many settled in the English colony of Pennsylvania. In the 18th century, many persons of English descent harbored resentment towards the increasing number of German settlers. Benjamin Franklin in "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.", complained about the increasing influx of German Americans, stating that they had a negative influence on the early United States. The only exception were Germans of Saxon descent "who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased"._
> _Unlike most European immigrant groups, whose acceptance as white came gradually over the course of the late 19th century (that is, in U.S. colloquial definitions, since all Europeans were white by legal U.S. definition), German immigrants quickly became accepted as white.__[11]"_
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defini...rish_Americans
> 
> _"In the 18th century Irish immigrants had the same rights and privileges as all other European settlers. Irish Americans were not always considered white.[12]__ In fact, up until the dawn of the 20th Century, some Americans did not consider the Irish to be white, and even after most did accept them as such, significant amounts of prejudice still continued for a few decades afterwards in many places."_
> ...


Why an intelligent man like you believe in this crap? Every educated American knows Benjamin Franklin was an ignorant bigot. OK? He never traveled to all the countries or peoples he mentions. He only knew about the colonies, England and France. He certainly never went to Germany, Sweden, Ireland, or Spain. He was ignorant like many participants in this forum. They think because they see a football (soccer) team or a hollywood movie, or some magazine that it represents reality. But it does not. 

OK I have seen some Germans that can pass as swarthy but most do not. I knew a German from NW Germany who had a Japanese complexion (swarthy in winter but brown in summer) from Dusseldorf. The only way he would pass for a white man was his language. I personally think -- by my travels -- that E Saxon Germans are more "white" than NW Saxon Germans. Please dont think because you have a philosopher that it means he knows everything or is "wisdom." You need a higher level of analysis to understand.  :Smiling:

----------


## Drac II

> So does Drac. He thinks they looked exactly like they were portrayed in paintings by Muslims with light or white skin. Amazing.


I never brought up the word "white" in this subject, you did. It was I that had to explain to you the difference between "white" and "Cacuasian/Caucasoid". And the ancient and medieval portrayals of Arabs by the Arabs themselves show Caucasian people, many with light pigmentation. You believe this is some sort of strange "conspiracy", while most people accept it as simply a reflection of reality. Had the Arabs already been heavily mixed with black Africans by ancient times we should expect to see this reflected in their art.

----------


## Drac II

> Basically the whole genetically Germano_Celtic world. From France on it's southern to Germany on it's western, Scandinavia on it's northern and Ireland on it's western borders. 
> 
> This is one of the many reasons why "white" is a useless and non scientific term, because in history it has changed it's meanings several times. And it still does.


Ironically, the word "white" was used in racial contexts by other peoples (including the much talked about Arabs) quite before Northern Europeans and Americans. So they did not even develop this concept but actually "borrowed" it from others and then gave it their own spin.

----------


## Drac II

> Drac has distorted what I was saying by claiming that I said ALL Arabs are black or part black. But that is not what I said.


Your original claim was that Arabs were either black Africans or heavily mixed with them since ancient times. After being shown evidence to the contrary you have been modifying this claim, but always trying to retain some part of the original claim.

----------


## John Doe

> Catholicism had nothing to do with race. Germans received hate because we fought against them not because they were considered not white.


Religion was a factor that people of the time used to determine things such as race, you need to realise that what people thought at the time was different than what most people today see.

----------


## joeyc

I've still to see a single strong evidence that Italians were officially considered as non white at some point in either Australia or America. The 1924 act limited immigration from all European countries by the way.

----------


## John Doe

> I've still to see a single strong evidence that Italians were officially considered as non white at some point in either Australia or America. The 1924 act limited immigration from all European countries by the way.


But still most specifically from southern and eastern Europe in order to limit Catholic and Jewish immigration. As for the white Australia policy, it limited basically any non British-Irish immigration.
Although in Australia you weren't deported if you weren't Anglo-Celtic but you
1. Came to Australia before Federation in 1901
2. Was born in Australia

But really, early on the White Australia policy was mainly targeted at Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese etc, and truth be told the Canadians and Americans also had such laws.

----------


## Hauteville

Levantines look scandinavians and average northern moroccans are 50-60% blonde hair lol

----------


## Hauteville

> The posters on that "Italic roots" forum, oh dear. Jersey Shore meets Stormfront. They might as well post pictures of crowds in New Orleans after Katrina, or of the Baltimore riots, and claim these pictures as representative of the American population. 
> 
> It is notorious that the upper classes of Levantine countries have a "fairer" look than the one you see among these Hezbollah radicals; why? Possibly the effect of a rather old "natural selection" process, as we all know that fair skin and delicate features are held in high standard in the Middle East (and people who have a little more money can obviously be more picky about their mating options). 
> 
> Anyway, I would estimate that around half the people in those pictures, if they wore Gucci shirts, Armani sunglasses, had a fashionable haircut and a Cristiano Ronaldoesque demeanour, could *still* pass for being at least Sicilian.



Weird because i'm from Sicily and i confuse the people in the gallery of Joeyc for north african immigrants here.

----------


## Hauteville

Gallery of Sicilians, the differences with the levantine gallery is big, who deny that is blind.
Even dresses with Gucci and Cristiano Ronaldo's hairstyle levantines on average are far away because of facial features and darker skin color.

http://italicroots.lefora.com/topic/...s-of-Sicilians

----------


## joeyc

> But still most specifically from southern and eastern Europe in order to limit Catholic and Jewish immigration. As for the white Australia policy, it limited basically any non British-Irish immigration.
> Although in Australia you weren't deported if you weren't Anglo-Celtic but you
> 1. Came to Australia before Federation in 1901
> 2. Was born in Australia
> 
> But really, early on the White Australia policy was mainly targeted atk Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese etc, and truth be told the Canadians and Americans also had such laws.


The 1924 act also hit Belgians, Dutch, French, Icelanders and Swiss for example, who did not migrate in large numbers before 1890. Also they let in countless of Catholic Germans and Irish, so you are wrong.

----------


## Hauteville

DuPidh only italians and balkans can look un europeans?ah sorry now i have seen you are a mexican so your Spanish masters look like anglos.

----------


## John Doe

> The 1924 act also hit Belgians, Dutch, French, Icelanders and Swiss for example, who did not migrate in large numbers before 1890. Also they let in countless of Catholic Germans and Irish, so you are wrong.


They didn't exclude these people, they limited the amount of people from these populations to a limit per year, which didn't hit the British isles as hard, however, they still had a chance to come in unlike Africans and Asians who were completely excluded.

P.S Many Americans of Dutch/Frisian descent came to America during the 1600 and 1700's since the Dutch had colonies there, also many of the first Amish were from the German speaking region of Switzerland and we know they came during the 17th century. Same goes for French people from Louisiana and Acadia who were in America before the US even existed. They let Germans and Irish people in, true, but that still didn't stop the American authorities from preferring the so called "WASP" migrants and from discriminating against German and Irish Catholics. The reason for the discrimination of the Americans against Irish immigrants goes to the roots of enmity between the English and the Irish which intensified with the Protestant reformation.

----------


## Hauteville

I can post another gallery over than that for sicilians but for mainland South Italy and also them look very distinct from the levantines.

----------


## joeyc

> I can post another gallery over than that for sicilians but for mainland South Italy and also them look very distinct from the levantines.


Are Italians really darker than Lebanese? 

http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4788569/1/

LOOOOOOL

----------


## Hauteville

> Are Italians really darker than Lebanese? 
> 
> http://s1.zetaboards.com/anthroscape/topic/4788569/1/
> 
> LOOOOOOL



Lol all these Americans (both from US and South Americans) who think that we look like jersey shore and guidos without never seen a real italian never cease to amaze me. Lel

----------


## joeyc

50% of Syrians fit in Sicily. LoooL

If you include North Africans in Sicily, then yes.

----------


## Hauteville

"If they are dresses with Gucci and Cristiano Ronaldo's hairstyle" lel

Like we look like Jersey shore really

----------


## John Doe

> "If they are dresses with Gucci and Cristiano Ronaldo's hairstyle" lel
> 
> Like we look like Jersey shore really


That's called stereotyping and stigmas, like the idea that all Scandinavians are blonde blue eyed giants or that all Irish people are ginger and green eyed with freckles etc.

----------


## Alan

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_whiteness_in_the_United_States#Germ an_Americans
> 
> _"Large numbers of Germans migrated to North America between the 1680s and 1760s. Many settled in the English colony of Pennsylvania. In the 18th century, many persons of English descent harbored resentment towards the increasing number of German settlers. Benjamin Franklin in "Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.", complained about the increasing influx of German Americans, stating that they had a negative influence on the early United States. The only exception were Germans of Saxon descent "who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased"._
> _Unlike most European immigrant groups, whose acceptance as white came gradually over the course of the late 19th century (that is, in U.S. colloquial definitions, since all Europeans were white by legal U.S. definition), German immigrants quickly became accepted as white.__[11]"_
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defini...rish_Americans
> 
> _"In the 18th century Irish immigrants had the same rights and privileges as all other European settlers. Irish Americans were not always considered white.[12]__ In fact, up until the dawn of the 20th Century, some Americans did not consider the Irish to be white, and even after most did accept them as such, significant amounts of prejudice still continued for a few decades afterwards in many places."_
> ...


To be fair the blacked out parts don't say the Germans were never considered "white". It says there were prejudices and the people consider Saxon Germans as principal body *of* the "white people". That doesn't imply that the other Germans were considered "non white" but that Saxon Germans in combination to British were considered the "Elite of whites". And contrary to other Europeans as it says Germans were quickly accepted as "Whites". Quickly means for me, probably already in the 16th to 17th century. This is what I understand from the text.

The second bold sentence says that Irish were not always considered "white" that might be true but it doesn't point when and for how long. It was probably at the very beginning since as I said "White" is more of an Anglo_Saxon ethnocultural thing than anything else. In the next bold sentence it says up until the 20th century *some* Americans considered Irish still not as "white". Some implies that it was a rather small minority and the large majority was well aware that they were "White.

But all these early "white" vs "non white" classifications were really based on political issues. Irish and English people were known as enemies. So were Germans and English. A clear definition of this term "white" established itself when US declared Independence. And around that time a clear, well let's say "racial" character of this classification came on light. And from now on all People from the Celto_Germanic genetic room in Europe were considered "white". It would have been absurd for the US to consider Germans/French who were in their racial look very similar to Biritsh as "non whites".

Just shows how useless and unscientific this term "white" is. 

There are only two ways to describe the Caucasian world. 1. geographically European, West Asian, North African and South_Central Asian 2. Physically Northwest/Central European, East European, South European, Northern West Asian, Southern West Asian, South_Central Asian, and North African.

----------


## joeyc

Brits are actually swarthier than Germans and Swedes. LOL

The problem with Americans is that they think they are the center of the world, just because their ancestors were social outcasts who were expelled from England. Americans are actually descended from the lowest class of the United Kingdom.

----------


## joeyc

> "If they are dresses with Gucci and Cristiano Ronaldo's hairstyle" lel
> 
> Like we look like Jersey shore really


Hahahaha. Reading this thread made my day.

Vittorio mi fai il piacere di postare l'intera squadra di calcio siriana dal thread sui levantini, che sto col mobile? Tra un po il MENA di turno mi parte che Bashar Al Assad è scuro per il Levante. Hahahaha.

----------


## John Doe

> Brits are actually swarthier than Germans and Swedes.


Well the WASPs didn't give a damn.

----------


## Athiudisc

> The problem with Americans is that they think they are the center of the world, just because their ancestors were social outcasts who were expelled from England. Americans are actually descended from the lowest class of the United Kingdom.


The problem with you is that you seem ignorant of the fact that most Americans are not of English descent, "low class" or otherwise.

----------


## joeyc

We were talking about "old-stock" Americans here...

----------


## Sile

> Well the WASPs didn't give a damn.


To others

WASP = western anglo saxon protestants

I don't know why you isolated these

----------


## Vallicanus

> The problem with Americans is that they think they are the center of the world, just because their ancestors were social outcasts who were expelled from England. Americans are actually descended from the lowest class of the United Kingdom.


Pot or kettle, anyone?
As if the Southern Italian migrants to the USA were any sort of elite. :Laughing:

----------


## John Doe

> To others
> 
> WASP = western anglo saxon protestants
> 
> I don't know why you isolated these


White Anglo Saxon Protestant, they were the ruling class in America even today (the Bushes, the Clintons, the Waltons etc), and they traditionally despised populations such as Irish Catholics who posed a threat to their position as ruling class.

----------


## Vallicanus

Ma che scrivete, razzisti?

This thread is about North Africans, not Levantines.

----------


## Johannes

> Ma che scrivete, razzisti?
> 
> This thread is about North Africans, not Levantines.


I dont understand why we are arguing about Arabs in Iberia or whether Italians are white. The Arabs contributed 0% in the Iberian DNA. We should go back to Berber DNA.

----------


## Johannes

> White Anglo Saxon Protestant, they were the ruling class in America even today (the Bushes, the Clintons, the Waltons etc), and they traditionally despised populations such as Irish Catholics who posed a threat to their position as ruling class.


Yes I agree and they might have been involved with the assassination of JFK. JFK was the only Catholic president.

----------


## Johannes

Here are images of Moors or Berbers:

----------


## Drac II

> Here are images of Moors or Berbers:


Now you are showing your full-blown Afrocentrist/Nordicist agendas, no longer even trying to disguise them. 

Only two of these paintings are from the Middle Ages, from the "Book of Games" and the "Cantigas de Santa Maria" of King Alfonso the Wise (13th century AD), and unfortunately for the fantasies of both Afrocentrist and Nordicist charlatans the vast majority of "Moors" are actually portrayed like this in those books:












The few sub-Saharan African types shown among them are usually servants or foot-soldiers, like these two among the soldiers escorting Christian prisoners:



Now from the "Book of Games":













In conclusion: certainly not the "Negroes" of Afrocentric/Nordicist dreams. Many of them are even portrayed with reddish and blondish beards. Plus almost all of them, even the majority of the few ones portrayed with a darker appearance, have obviously Caucasian features. In fact, the only way of telling most of them apart from the Christians also portrayed in these books is by the Muslim garbs they wear, not by any physical traits. So much for the fantasies and dishonest manipulations of Afrocentrist/Nordicist charlatans. The number of sub-Saharan African types shown in these two books are minimal, and usually shown in subservient roles (servants/slaves & mercenaries) to the Moors & Arabs.

And Alessandro de' Medici was not really any "Moor" but part black African from his mother's side. In another thread you already tried a similar tactic with Juan de Pareja, another descendant of black slaves.

----------


## Hauteville

Just for to say: original Berbers look much more European than average North African, look at Zidane.
Anyway the last Emir of Sicily was a Berber (Benavert) and he was describe as a red-bearded.
Medieval muslims were not black, only americans can believe in such bullshits.

----------


## Johannes

> Just for to say: original Berbers look much more European than average North African, look at Zidane.
> Anyway the last Emir of Sicily was a Berber (Benavert) and he was describe as a red-bearded.
> Medieval muslims were not black, only americans can believe in such bullshits.


Hey! Why don't you pay attention! -- I never said Berbers were black. What I said was that many Berbers were dark-skinned and to Europeans from the north they looked black (probably from the summer heat Berbers turn very dark brown). This is why the myth of the black moor came into existence. If the Berbers had not been dark skinned no myth would have been created. Yes the vast majority of the Spanish Muslims were white but there was a significant minority of Berbers, probably around 20%. All those pictures that you saw from Drac are Spanish Muslims not Berbers or Arabs.

----------


## Drac II

> All those pictures that you saw from Drac are Spanish Muslims not Berbers or Arabs.


That could well be the case for the drawings that represent events taking place in Iberia itself, but unfortunately for your assertion many of those drawings I posted represent events taking place in North Africa. For example, the first drawing I posted portrays a Spanish Christian army joining forces with a Moroccan Muslim army against a common enemy in North Africa itself: 

http://warfare.totalh.net/Cantiga/Ca..._Maria-181.htm

The medieval Spanish scribes who made these drawings portray the Muslims there with pretty much the same generally light complexions and features as they do the ones in Iberia. It doesn't look at all that they made any significant differentiation between the phenotype of Iberian Muslims and those of the Berber/Arab Muslims from North Africa.

----------


## Drac II

> Hey! Why don't you pay attention! -- I never said Berbers were black. What I said was that many Berbers were dark-skinned and to Europeans from the north they looked black (probably from the summer heat Berbers turn very dark brown). This is why the myth of the black moor came into existence. If the Berbers had not been dark skinned no myth would have been created. Yes the vast majority of the Spanish Muslims were white but there was a significant minority of Berbers, probably around 20%. All those pictures that you saw from Drac are Spanish Muslims not Berbers or Arabs.


That might very well be the case for the drawings portraying things happening in Iberia itself, but unfortunately for your assertion many of these drawings are in fact portraying things that happened in North Africa. For example, the first drawing I posted shows a Spanish Christian army joining forces with a Moroccan Muslim army against a common enemy in North Africa:

http://warfare.totalh.net/Cantiga/Ca..._Maria-181.htm

The medieval Spanish scribes who made these drawings portray the Muslims there with pretty much the same generally light complexions and features as the ones from Iberia.

----------


## Drac II

> All those pictures that you saw from Drac are Spanish Muslims not Berbers or Arabs.


That might very well be the case for the drawings portraying things happening in Iberia itself, but unfortunately for your assertion many of these drawings are in fact portraying things that happened in North Africa. For example, the first drawing I posted shows a Spanish Christian army joining forces with a Moroccan Muslim army against a common enemy in North Africa:

http://warfare.totalh.net/Cantiga/Ca..._Maria-181.htm

The medieval Spanish scribes who made these drawings portray the Muslims there with pretty much the same generally light complexions and features as the ones from Iberia.

----------


## Johannes

> That might very well be the case for the drawings portraying things happening in Iberia itself, but unfortunately for your assertion many of these drawings are in fact portraying things that happened in North Africa. For example, the first drawing I posted shows a Spanish Christian army joining forces with a Moroccan Muslim army against a common enemy in North Africa:
> 
> http://warfare.totalh.net/Cantiga/Ca..._Maria-181.htm
> 
> The medieval Spanish scribes who made these drawings portray the Muslims there with pretty much the same generally light complexions and features as the ones from Iberia.


What do pictures have to do with reality? Artists could have colored them green or yellow for all we care! If your strange claim that Arabs and Berbers were so light-skinned, then how did the word "moro" or "moreno" come about??? They both mean dark skinned or dark complexioned. In Brazil it means black! Granted the vast majority of the Iberian Muslims were European. However, the majority of the fighters against the Christian Armies in Iberia were either Berber or Black (Arabs had long disappeared from the gene pool by the 11th century). When white Spaniards and other northern Europeans saw these enemies -- especially against the Castilians and Leonese -- they thought they were black or near black. If not so then how does this myth of the "Black Moor" come into existence or the words mentioned above??? Did they pop out of the sky? Is there something that your genius mind has ignored or forgotten?

----------


## Johannes

Here are pictures of Berbers from the internet. Granted they have changed somewhat from ancient times due to SSA and European mixtures. But in general they do not look like Europeans. 



I picked the types that represent the majority. there are some extremes of course:

----------


## Tomenable

> Medieval muslims were not black, only americans can believe in such bullshits.


Muslim is not a race, Muslim is a religion. Saying "Muslims are not Black" is like saying "Americans are not Black".

Well, most of Americans aren't Black, and the majority of Medieval Muslims also weren't Black - but some were.

*This Medieval sculpture shows a Moorish knight, if I am not mistaken:*

http://41.media.tumblr.com/3338cd079...m02o1_1280.jpg

----------


## Drac II

> Muslim is not a race, Muslim is a religion. Saying "Muslims are not Black" is like saying "Americans are not Black".
> 
> Well, most of Americans aren't Black, and the majority of Medieval Muslims also weren't Black - but some were.
> 
> *This Medieval sculpture shows a Moorish knight, if I am not mistaken:*
> 
> http://41.media.tumblr.com/3338cd079...m02o1_1280.jpg


That's St. Maurice, who was neither "Moorish" nor Muslim. He was a Christian Egyptian who joined the Roman army (Theban legion.) The above statue is from 13th century Germany and it is purely romanticized iconography from a time when the myth of the "blackamoor" was starting to take on some people's imagination, usually people who had actually never seen "Moors" (or Egyptians, for that matter) in their lives. Earlier depictions of him do not show him as a black African, like this IX-X century Latin manuscript:

----------


## Johannes

> That's St. Maurice, who was neither "Moorish" nor Muslim. He was a Christian Egyptian who joined the Roman army (Theban legion.) The above statue is from 13th century Germany and it is purely romanticized iconography from a time when the myth of the "blackamoor" was starting to take on some people's imagination, usually people who had actually never seen "Moors" (or Egyptians, for that matter) in their lives. Earlier depictions of him do not show him as a black African, like this IX-X century Latin manuscript:


Yes you are right that most northern Europeans have never seen a black person. However, if you bother to read history many English, French, German, and even Scandinavian warriors went to Spain and fought the Moors during the 12th and 13th centuries. They saw first hand what the Muslims looked like. Since most of the Muslim warriors were Berbers and blacks during the Crusades in Iberia (11th - 13th centuries). And since the Almoravides, who during the 11th century conquered parts of what we know as Mauritania, Senegal, Ghana, brought many blacks as slaves to Iberia and were used as soldiers, when the northern Europeans fought them they thought they were all black! When these northern Europeans went back to their homes they brought the myth of the Black Moor, which is false, but never the less it has some truth in that Berbers turn very dark when exposed to sun and they were lumped together with blacks.

----------


## Carlos

> You are always distorting what I say or don't pay attention. I never said Arabs were all black. I don't know why you keep harping about this. I only said that some Yemenis probably had some people that looked like mulattoes. This is why I showed you the pictures. But you distort everything and then accuse me of saying they were all black. All I know is that in Andalusia or Spain the Arab nobility preferred northern girls with white skin, blue yes, and blond hair. That's is all. I hope you finally get it and stop trying to distort my statements.


Do not confuse Al-Andalus with the current Andalusia or Spain.

----------

