K12b North-African admixture in Europe (Dienekes K12b, 2012)

[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=j...re of perhaps thirty or forty to one.&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:

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:

0

So I think that was a bit of an exaggeration.

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:

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.

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.