Angela
Elite member
- Messages
- 21,823
- Reaction score
- 12,329
- Points
- 113
- Ethnic group
- Italian
I'd say West Eurasian is the best term to use. Then East Asian is another very real genetic-signal.
Exactly, Fire-Haired.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'd say West Eurasian is the best term to use. Then East Asian is another very real genetic-signal.
What are you talking about??? I told you the ethnic cleansing of Muslims was severe and it happened during the 12-13th centuries and you give me information about the 17th century??? Why are people in this post so ignorant? After the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa 1212 the Christians killed thousands of Muslim warriors and all of Andalusia was liberated (except little Granada). According to the chronicles all Muslims were expelled from Sevilla and Cordova. And all the Muslims from Cadiz, Huelva, Jerez, fled into either Granada or Morocco.
Greek vessel portraying a Negroid face and a Caucasoid face:
The Greek figures depicted above are just shown as a contrast to the light background and thus are depicted dark. This is only symbolism. BUT the "Caucasoid face" does not look European. It looks typically Middle Eastern and brown and definitely not "European."
It should be pointed out here that the large majority of the much talked about "Moriscos" were descendants of the Iberian converts to Islam, not Arab or Berber foreigners. 16th-17th century paintings and illustrations by both Spaniards and foreigners in Spain who witnessed the expulsions of these "Moriscos" show that phenotypically most of them were hardly any different from the Spanish Christians persecuting them, the only way to tell most of them apart from one another is in fact by the clothes they wear and not by their physical appearance:
http://www.arauco.org/SAPEREAUDE/te...2g Pere Oromig Embarquement des Morisques.jpg
http://www.arauco.org/SAPEREAUDE/te... moriscos al port de Denia. Vicent Mestre.jpg
http://admin.religionenlibertad.com/archivos/religionenlibertad.com//3359700laexpulsindelosmoris.jpg
http://lamarinaplaza.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Retrat-den-Baltasar-Mercader.jpg
http://loffit.abc.es/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Danza-Morisca.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Weiditz_Trachtenbuch_105-106.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Weiditz_Trachtenbuch_103-104.jpg
https://ernesto51.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/granada_morisca.jpg?w=655
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-trA8SDk18ak/UbMHN5JTWPI/AAAAAAAAA6w/5ejKQ5dR26I/s1600/Moriscos.jpg
https://c4.staticflickr.com/8/7308/10389133563_f45df90375_b.jpg
Thus this "ethnic cleansing" was really of a religious nature, similar to what happens in the Balkans even today between Christians and Muslims, the majority of whom are in fact descended from the native inhabitants not from Turkish foreigners.
Yes but not before my friend. You are absolutely right about the Moriscos. However, I was talking before about the ethnic cleansing of the Moors during the 13th century after the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa 1212. After the battle the vast majority of the Muslim population was either forced to flee or were massacred. I dont recall all the details as it has been 20 years since I read all the journals on Medieval History of the Iberian Peninsula. All I remember is that the numbers of Muslims that were removed were very large. For example, the cities of Ubeda and Baeza were completely empty when the Christians took them (I believe all the inhabitants of Ubeda fled and the the ones on Beaza were massacred -- including children and all the animals). I also remember that ALL the Muslims from Seville and Cordova were expelled and not allowed to return. Jaen, Jerez, and Cadiz also lost a large amount of Muslims. Muslims fled because they were terrified of the Christians and they could not accept being ruled by infidels. Therefore, the majority (probably millions) of the Muslim population was reduced by massacres and voluntary and forced expulsions. Most fled to Granada and Morocco. This was done by Castilians. The Aragonese, on the other hand, were not as ruthless and allowed many to stay. Many Muslims accepted being ruled by Aragonese in Valencia but were eventually were expelled during the 17th century. The Castillians under Alfonso VIII and his grandson Ferdinand III could have easily conquered Granada. But the wars had depleted the king's treasury and the expulsions of the Muslims dramatically reduced tax revenues. The kings of Castile needed money. They even begged the Christians of the North (even the French and some say the German peasants) to come and settle on cheap land in Andalusia. But the idiots refused. If they would have accepted the lots of land being sold by the kings of Castile many Christians would have become wealthy, and would have created a new middle class, which would have changed the history of Spain and Europe. Thus, vast tracts of land were sold to the Church, the Military Orders, and the nobility at cut rate prices. But this took time and the kings needed cash. Thus the Kingdom of Granada was allowed to exist because it became the cash cow of the Kings of Castile. I should add that the Black Plague saved the Muslims well). The Muslims that were left in Spain numbered no more than 250,000 by the 17th century. So if we make some calculations: during the Middle Ages there were some 2 millions of Muslims (if we take 4 millions as a total population in the peninsula). So A LOT of Muslims were removed from Europe.
It was not just the Muslims who were ethnically cleansed. The Almoravides expelled all the Christians and Jews from Andalusia, Valencia, and Saragossa. The Almoravides were Muslim fundamentalists who wanted to create and apartheid state between Muslims and non Muslims. Thus they could not tolerate infidels anymore. This was idiotic because 1/4 to 1/3 of the southern population shifted to the north and added to the coffers of the kings and provided much needed manpower to crush the Muslims.
The medieval expulsions and retreats would also have included the native Muslim population (usually called "muladies"), since they formed the bulk of it. So if I did not misunderstand your original argument, you believe that fair North Africans are due to these expulsions of Muslims from Iberia, the majority of whom ended up in North Africa. So you must be acknowledging the fact that these Muslims being expelled from Iberia were for the most part actually Europeans, otherwise your argument would not be very logical. If they were mostly "Moors" and Arabs then your argument would not have much of a point. This takes us back to my counterargument: without denying the contribution that the Iberian expulsions had in this regard, the fact still remains that it is simply impossible to attribute the presence of fairer types among North Africans to historical events like those, because we have evidence going as far back as Pharaonic times that these types already existed among North Africans, and were even common enough in some parts for the Egyptians to have noticed and stereotyped a group of people (Libyans) with those traits.
I don't see the difficulty here. Why would the fact that Muslims were expelled in the 12th-13th century mean that there weren't plenty of them still around to be expelled in the 17th century? Also, why were there revolts of the Moriscos in the later centuries in Valencia if they had all already been exiled to Granada?
I would recommend the following book for a thorough analysis of the difficult and protracted process involved in expelling the Moriscos from Spain.
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en...Behind&f=false
I agree with you but certanly they weren't "very dark". More of a brown tone, how we see it in North India. Some Greek historians even compares the Egyptians to Indians (Known India back than was Pakistan and North India) based on pigmentation.
I imagine the ancient Egyptians this way.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/International/gty_Adel_Imam_nt_120425_wblog.jpg
http://www.cairorush.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/asser.jpg
http://www.whilemusic.com/Content/Album/Album_9059.jpg
http://travelblog.portfoliocollection.com/images/mido.png
http://nilesports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/gedo-hull-city-striker.jpg
Juan de Pareja
The number of Berbers in Iberia during the Middle Ages numbered no more than 20% of the total Muslim population. So it was roughly ~ 400,000 and they lived away from the European Muslims (southern Portugal, Extremadura, and Granada areas). The Arabs dont count at all as they were too few and by the 13th century had mixed with the Europeans. The Berbers would have been the first to go because they had families right across the Strait and would have had it easy. The European Muslims had a terrible time because they were natives and going to Africa would have terrified them. Many converted but many also went into Granada and some to Morocco and Algeria. These probably numbered some thousands. And this I believe created the "white" Berbers. There are some Andalusi villages in the Rif area of northern Morocco. They said that they look exactly like the villages of Anadalusia. So there is physical proof there.
here is what the Moors of the African variety probably looked like:
North Africans are primarly descended from Semitic people. That's evident by looking at their Y-dna lineages. The main Semitic lineage, namely the J-P58, is extremely common in all North Africa.
Most North Africans were not tested for J-P58, but the ones who were tested had plenty of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#Africa
Frequency of J-P58.
Egypt: 19.7%
Tunisia (Sousse): 25.9%
Tunisia (Tunis): 31.1%
Tunisia (Sened Berbers): 31.4%
Tunisia (Andalusian Zaghouan): 43.8%
Tunisia (Cosmopolitan Tunis): 24.2%
Now for Middle Eastern Semites:
Qatar: 56.9%
UAE: 34.8%
Yemen: 67.7%
Oman: 37.2%
Ashkenazi Jews (Cohanim): 46.0%
Bedouin Negev: 64.3%
Syria (Sunni from Hama): 44.4%
I used Pareja only to show the negroid side of the Moors. I probably did not mentioned it. Of course the vast majority of the "Moors" were in fact European. I am also in agreement that there were some "white" Moors in antiquity. But they were small in number. The European Muslims added more to the DNA. I believe 10-15% of Moroccan DNA is European.Anthropologists, like Carleton Coon, are well aware of these "Andalusian Moors" in North Africa and have noted them. In fact, Coon even implied that the "Moors" were influenced by the Andalusians more than the other way around. However, what you consider as "white Berbers" already existed long before that.
We have plenty of Roman coins and busts depicting North Africans, they certainly did not look like Pareja, who was a descendant of sub-Saharan slaves. Just look at the busts and coins of Macrinus or Aemilianus.
Not only influenced but created the whole Muslim culture in Iberia. The Berbers were backwards country pumpkins and the Arabs were slightly more advanced. They learned everything from Europeans, especially Greeks and Romans. Very little was actually "Arabian or Berber."Anthropologists, like Carleton Coon, are well aware of these "Andalusian Moors" in North Africa and have noted them. In fact, Coon even implied that the "Moors" were influenced by the Andalusians more than the other way around. However, what you consider as "white Berbers" already existed long before that.
Not only influenced but created the whole Muslim culture in Iberia. The Berbers were backwards country pumpkins and the Arabs were slightly more advanced. They learned everything from Europeans, especially Greeks and Romans. Very little was actually "Arabian or Berber."
I used Pareja only to show the negroid side of the Moors. I probably did not mentioned it. Of course the vast majority of the "Moors" were in fact European. I am also in agreement that there were some "white" Moors in antiquity. But they were small in number. The European Muslims added more to the DNA. I believe 10-15% of Moroccan DNA is European.
This was true at first, during the early years of Islam, but later on the Muslims (including Arabs, Persians, Berbers and Europeans) made their own contributions and improvements. For example, the ancient Greeks thought that vision was because the eyes emitted "visual rays", while the medieval Muslims more correctly explained that it was the objects being seen that emitted the light that hits the eyes:
http://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Hidden/59/Alhazen:-Early-experiments-on-light/170
This thread has been viewed 75135 times.