Guanches of Canary Islands

[Guapo]

Off the coast of West Africa lie the Canary Islands - this region became home to a mysterious group in antiquity who became known as the Guanches.

While it is unknown for sure how they arrived on the islands, what is known is that they shared a number of cultural characteristics with the ancient Egyptians and that their building style appears to have been replicated in South and Central America.

Like the Celtic Tocharians, the finest evidence of what the original Guanche looked like, is in the fortuitous existence of original Guanche mummies, which are on public display in that island group's national museum.



The corpses on display are estimated to be between 600 and 1000 years old.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes2/guanche_g.jpg
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes2/guanche_f.jpg

Above: Guanche mummies, with red hair and other Nordic features - the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands.They are likely to be the original Cro-Magnons.

An examination of one of the mummies' bodies showed incisions that virtually matched those found in Egyptian mummies, although the string used by the Guanche embalmers to close the wounds was much coarser than would have been used by the Egyptian experts.

The Guanches also possessed the art of writing, although this has not yet been the subject of any major study.

GUANCHE TYPE PYRAMIDS FOUND IN MEXICO


The famous explorer, Thor Heyerdahl, who "rediscovered" the pyramids on the Canary Islands and who set up an academic body to study the phenomena, argued that the pyramids may be remains from explorers who sailed the Atlantic in ancient times, and who may have possibly forged a link with the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas.

As the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands were fair-haired and bearded, it was possible, Heyerdahl suggested, that long before the 15th Century, people of the same stock as those who settled the Canary Islands, also sailed the same route along the Canary Current that took Christopher Columbus to the Americas.

This theory formed the basis of Heyerdahl's famous "RA" expeditions in which he showed that is was possible to cross the Atlantic in an Egyptian reed boat.

In fact Columbus' starting off point was the Canary Islands, where he obtained supplies and water on Gomera, the island next to Tenerife. The Guanches on Tenerife in 1492 did not permit Columbus to land on their island - they were not impressed by the physical appearance of the bearded Europeans, who looked like the Guanches themselves.

When Columbus and the Europeans who followed in his wake landed in the Americas, they were welcomed and initially worshiped as gods, since the beardless Indians they encountered believed that the spanish belonged to the same people as the legendary founders of their civilization, bearded men from across the Atlantic Ocean.

According to the Aztec and Olmec (Central American Amerind) legends, their god, Quetzalcoatl, had Nordic features (eyes and hair color) and a beard. This god came from over the sea and taught the Amerinds how to raise corn and build structures.

There is indeed a marked similarity between the step pyramids to be found on the Canary Islands and those to be found in Central and South America, strongly suggesting yet another great lost migration, this time to Central and South America, perhaps a thousand years or more before Columbus.

The existence of the red-haired Guanches on the Canary Islands, combined with the red-haired pre-Columbus mummies found in South America and the marked similarity in pyramid building styles, indicate that an over the atlantic people probably used the Canaries Current to cross the Atlantic, most likely between 2000 and 500 BC. Columbus himself used the Canaries Current, setting out from the Canary Islands on his first crossing of the Atlantic in 1492 AD.

There is also clear evidence from the Mexican side of the Atlantic Ocean that blond-haired people reached that part of the world long before the spanish explorations of the late 1490s.


THE DISAPPEARANCE OF THE GUANCHES


Guanche artifacts, such as cave murals, tombs, stone and mortar walls, broken pottery and other everyday items are abundant on the island. Similar artifacts have been found on the African continent itself - notably in Morocco, indicating that at some stage the Guanches crossed the sea to Africa.

There they started mixing with other racial types on the african continent itself. This process is very likely to be the cause of some flashes of blond hair and light colored eyes still to be found amongst the Berber population of north west Africa to this day.

The pyramids and other structures on the islands seem to have been constructed by an advanced people - certainly by the time of the spanish invasion, the Guanches had lost much of their civilized apparel, and spanish accounts have it that they were attacked by naked tribesmen, who sometimes inflicted serious military defeats upon the invading spaniards. It was only in 1496 that the spaniards finally defeated the last of the Guanches.

The arrival of the spaniards in the mid 14th Century saw the remaining Guanches absorbed into the new settler population. The blond, blue-eyed, tall stock has been preserved in part, and can still be seen today in many individuals on the island.


Culturally speaking, the Guanche civilization was completely absorbed by the imported continental European culture, so that the Canary Islands remains spanish territory to this day.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_guanches_1.htm#guanches

[Electronic God-Man]

I don't know. I believe that I have read somewhere that the Spanish said that the Guanches "lived like dogs" when they encountered them.

Reconstruction of a Guanche village on Tenerife.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Pueblo_Chico_Guanchen2.jpg

Alonso Fernández de Lugo presenting the captured Guanche kings of Tenerife to Ferdinand and Isabella.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/AlonsoFernandezdeLugo2.JPG


Genetic evidence shows that northern African peoples (most likely descendants of the Capsian culture) made a significant contribution to the aboriginal population of the Canaries following desertification of the Sahara at some point after 6000 BC. Linguistic evidence suggests ties between Guanche language and the Berber languages of northern Africa, particularly when comparing number systems. Research into the genetics of the Guanche population have led to the conclusion that they share an ancestry with Berber peoples.

The islands were visited by a number of peoples within recorded history. The Numidians, Phoenicians, and Carthaginians knew of the islands and made frequent visits, including expeditions dispatched from Mogador by Juba. The Romans occupied northern Africa and visited the Canaries between the 1st and 4th centuries AD, judging from Roman artefacts found on the island of Lanzarote. These show that Romans did trade with the Canaries, though there is no evidence of their ever settling there. Archaeology of the Canaries seem to reflect diverse levels of technology, some differing from the Neolithic culture that was encountered at the time of conquest.

Population genetics

A 2003 genetics research article by Nicole Maca-Meyer et al. published in the European Journal of Human Genetics compared aboriginal Guanche mtDNA (collected from Canarian archaeological sites) to that of today's Canarians and concluded that, "despite the continuous changes suffered by the population (Spanish colonisation, slave trade), aboriginal mtDNA [direct maternal] lineages constitute a considerable proportion [42 – 73%] of the Canarian gene pool. Although the Berbers are the most probable ancestors of the Guanches, it is deduced that important human movements [e.g., the Islamic-Arabic conquest of the Berbers] have reshaped Northwest Africa after the migratory wave to the Canary Islands" and the "results support, from a maternal perspective, the supposition that since the end of the 16th century, at least, two-thirds of the Canarian population had an indigenous substrate, as was previously inferred from historical and anthropological data."[9] mtDNA haplogroup U subclade U6b1 is Canarian-specific[13] and is the most common mtDNA haplogroup found in aboriginal Guanche archaeological burial sites.[9]

Y-DNA, or Y-chromosomal, (direct paternal) lineages were not analyzed in this study. However, an earlier study giving the aboriginal y-DNA contribution at 6% was cited by Maca-Meyer et al. but the results were critiqued as possibly flawed due to the widespread phylogeography of y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b1b, which may skew determination of the aboriginality versus coloniality of contemporary y-DNA lineages in the Canaries. Regardless, Maca-Meyer et al. states that historical evidence does support the explanation of "strong sexual asymmetry...as a result of a strong bias favouring matings between European males and aboriginal females, and to the important aboriginal male mortality during the Conquest.

However, it is odd that it has been noted by many that the original Guanches did often have fair hair. Other than that, they seem to be the descendants of Berber peoples.

At any rate, this is just to point out that we're not talking about Aryan supermen here if that was at all implied by the above article. The article talks about the Guanche being of the Nordic "blond, blue-eyed, tall stock" and then says that they must have went to Northern Africa and mixed "with other racial types on the african continent itself". I don't think this is necessary. Just Berbers with a higher prevalence of blue eyes and blonde hair. After all, if we are to believe Heyerdahl, the Amerindians thought that the Spanish looked no different than their Guanche/Quetzalcoatl gods from across the sea. There are blonde haired, blue eyed Spaniards, but most are not.

[Albion]

Off the coast of West Africa lie the Canary Islands - this region became home to a mysterious group in antiquity who became known as the Guanches.

While it is unknown for sure how they arrived on the islands, what is known is that they shared a number of cultural characteristics with the ancient Egyptians and that their building style appears to have been replicated in South and Central America.

A few traits common in many sophisticated human cultures doesn't mean cultural contact - just similar ideas due to core human beliefs.


Like the Celtic Tocharians, the finest evidence of what the original Guanche looked like, is in the fortuitous existence of original Guanche mummies, which are on public display in that island group's national museum.

I wish people would drop this theory. Just because some silly historians described the Tochararians in simple terms as "looking like Celts" it doesn't make them so.
They were described as "looking like Celts" so the average joe could understand that they were European looking, akin to the looks of Northern or Western Europeans the most.
Their culture has been shown to be more closely related to that of the Iranian nomads - the Scythians, Sarmatians, etc and they were probably absorbed into the Turkic peoples.
Besides, I don't see why Celts would leave relativley fertile Europe for a desert wasteland, Galatia seems to be the limit to where they'd have lived. Besides, how are they going to get past all the empires and other "barbarians" on their way, and wouldn't someone in modern-day Iran or Central Asia have recorded a random group of strangers passing through?


Above: Guanche mummies, with red hair and other Nordic features - the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands.They are likely to be the original Cro-Magnons.

I wouldn't say Nordic, these features are merely most associated with Nordics than other groups. But as you say, they are probably of a early group of humans, probably from some of the people who would become caucausians.


An examination of one of the mummies' bodies showed incisions that virtually matched those found in Egyptian mummies, although the string used by the Guanche embalmers to close the wounds was much coarser than would have been used by the Egyptian experts.

Egyptians could have indeed visited the islands and contributed towards the culture.


The Guanches also possessed the art of writing, although this has not yet been the subject of any major study.

That could have been Egyptians again, or maybe Phoencians or could have developed locally. In some areas it seems writing developed in isolation due to the right conditions being present.


The famous explorer, Thor Heyerdahl, who "rediscovered" the pyramids on the Canary Islands and who set up an academic body to study the phenomena, argued that the pyramids may be remains from explorers who sailed the Atlantic in ancient times, and who may have possibly forged a link with the pre-Columbian civilizations of the Americas.

Heyerdahl is ok, but I don't belive everything he said. He proposes boats and rafts in many of his theories, it seems he can't accept that civilizations can develop independently and din't all arise purely in the "old world".
I think I remember hearing somewhere that the Guanches only inhabited Tennerife? If this is true then I highly doubt they sailed across the Atlantic. If they didn't even colonize neighbouring islands then this raises doubts about their skill as sailors. They even seem to be absent from Maderia or the Azores, but this could be due to ocean currents opposing their excursions to these islands.
The Guanches could have got to Teneriffe by simple boats and drifted from Morroco to the Canaries. I also wonder what the hell Berbers would be doing as sophisticated sailors anyway, their homeland is mostly desert and I've never heard of them being particularly good sailors.
Will someone verifiy if they inhabited other Canary Islands other than Tenneriffe please?


As the original inhabitants of the Canary Islands were fair-haired and bearded, it was possible, Heyerdahl suggested, that long before the 15th Century, people of the same stock as those who settled the Canary Islands, also sailed the same route along the Canary Current that took Christopher Columbus to the Americas.

Yes, I believe Europeans could have been to Central America before Columbus, but I doubt it was Guanches, maybe Egyptians or Western Europeans though.


This theory formed the basis of Heyerdahl's famous "RA" expeditions in which he showed that is was possible to cross the Atlantic in an Egyptian reed boat.

Possible, but really, how many people would risk a crossing like that? Polynesians maybe, but then they could see other islands from one's they inhabited and must have theorized there being more, the Canary Islands must have seemed like the edge of the earth to the Guanches - or the begining of it.
Does anyone know if the Canary Islands were abundant with reeds before the Spanish came? In my opinion they probably would have prefered wood or skin boats opposed to reeds.


In fact Columbus' starting off point was the Canary Islands, where he obtained supplies and water on Gomera, the island next to Tenerife. The Guanches on Tenerife in 1492 did not permit Columbus to land on their island - they were not impressed by the physical appearance of the bearded Europeans, who looked like the Guanches themselves.

Why? Who were they expecting - Egyptians? I don't see any evidence of Amerindians visiting the Canary Islands or Europe before colonization, if anything its us visiting them before colonization.
At least we know they were probably caucausian European.


When Columbus and the Europeans who followed in his wake landed in the Americas, they were welcomed and initially worshiped as gods, since the beardless Indians they encountered believed that the spanish belonged to the same people as the legendary founders of their civilization, bearded men from across the Atlantic Ocean.

Maybe they were expecting Egyptians or western Europeans who might have visited Central America before.


According to the Aztec and Olmec (Central American Amerind) legends, their god, Quetzalcoatl, had Nordic features (eyes and hair color) and a beard. This god came from over the sea and taught the Amerinds how to raise corn and build structures.

This could have been some Egyptian, West European or Guanche visitors. How I'm saying Guanche is that Guanches could have had primitive boats and drifted in a storm or the like to Central America and been stranded there. If they ever made it back I think we'd see more of an Amerindian influence in Guanche culture and the Guanches probably would have made it to the Azores, Madeira and Portugal if they did indeed sail back, but there is no evidence for this.


There is indeed a marked similarity between the step pyramids to be found on the Canary Islands and those to be found in Central and South America, strongly suggesting yet another great lost migration, this time to Central and South America, perhaps a thousand years or more before Columbus.

This could have been coincidence. People wanting to communicate with their gods might have thought that the closer they were to the sky the closer they were to their gods, thus building pyramids - steps are for convenience in scaling the structure.


The existence of the red-haired Guanches on the Canary Islands, combined with the red-haired pre-Columbus mummies found in South America and the marked similarity in pyramid building styles, indicate that an over the atlantic people probably used the Canaries Current to cross the Atlantic, most likely between 2000 and 500 BC. Columbus himself used the Canaries Current, setting out from the Canary Islands on his first crossing of the Atlantic in 1492 AD.

These "European look-alikes" could have been from anywhere in Europe or even Egypt and the middle east. If they were Guanches they probably never made it back to the old world.


Guanche artifacts, such as cave murals, tombs, stone and mortar walls, broken pottery and other everyday items are abundant on the island. Similar artifacts have been found on the African continent itself - notably in Morocco, indicating that at some stage the Guanches crossed the sea to Africa.

The Guanches crossed from Africa, but might have crossed back over now and again. Tenneriffe and Africa are farting distance away, some Berber or Arab farts on the African side and you'll smell it in Teneriffe:D:D:D:D (I'm being sarcastic, but seriously they are very close).


There they started mixing with other racial types on the african continent itself. This process is very likely to be the cause of some flashes of blond hair and light colored eyes still to be found amongst the Berber population of north west Africa to this day.

The Berbers were originally Caucausian and Euopean-like. The ancestors of the Guanches probably came from the Berbers. The Berbers themselves however later became mixed as they began trading with sub-saharan africans and arabs. Originally the Berbers were actually genetically linked with Iberia and the British Isles.


The pyramids and other structures on the islands seem to have been constructed by an advanced people - certainly by the time of the spanish invasion, the Guanches had lost much of their civilized apparel, and spanish accounts have it that they were attacked by naked tribesmen, who sometimes inflicted serious military defeats upon the invading spaniards. It was only in 1496 that the spaniards finally defeated the last of the Guanches.

Well whilst we associated clothes with civilized societies, I don't entirely see a link with this and cultural decline. The Canary Islands are very hot, they might just have got fed up of clothes, indeed this probably manifests itself in todays nudists :D:D:D:D
Another explanation is that the Egyptians or another civilazation built the pyramids en route to Central America, perhaps living as overlords of the Guanches, or the Guanches might have retreated to other areas of the island.


The arrival of the spaniards in the mid 14th Century saw the remaining Guanches absorbed into the new settler population. The blond, blue-eyed, tall stock has been preserved in part, and can still be seen today in many individuals on the island.

Indeed, that is why I personally see the Canarians as a different people from the Spanish, much like the Galicians are. They are part Spanish, part Guanche I belive, so I just think of them as "Canarian".
There's even a whistle language called something like "Sibo" attributed to the Guanches, but I belive they have whistle languages in the Pyrenees as well, and I haven't hard of any in North Africa.
Some Guanches probably would have been taken as slaves to Madeira and the Azores as well, this has shown up int the genetic analysis of these islanders as having some "berber-like" genetics (aka Guanche genetics which are similar to those of the Berbers).


Culturally speaking, the Guanche civilization was completely absorbed by the imported continental European culture, so that the Canary Islands remains spanish territory to this day.

I see the Canarians as a mix of Spanish and Guanche culture, just because the Guanche culture isn't obvious it doesn't mean its not there. Its the same in England, there's a sort of Celtic cultural substtratum here, but its not obvious unless you really know English culture well.

:thumbs up

[Agrippa]

However, it is odd that it has been noted by many that the original Guanches did often have fair hair. Other than that, they seem to be the descendants of Berber peoples.

Actually typical Berberids are a Cromagnid type, which has often light pigmented variants. Even to this day many Berber people have higher frequencies of light eyes, hair and skin.

So thats absolutely no argument against a Berber-related, Afro-Asiatic ancestry, even on the contrary. Additionally there were differences observed among them, some darker, some lighter, again like in the native (pre-Neolithic, pre-European, pre-Semitic and pre-Negroid) Cromagnoid Berberids of the region.

The skulls I saw have usually strong Cromagnid traits. One even Nordiform individual from North Africa attached, for additional information look in this thread:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13698

Considering their cultural level, it might be even possible that they got metals at a certain time, but they didnt manage to keep that up on the islands, obviously isolation and limited ressources will result in a degraded culture, relative to Europe and North Africa (also called White Africa - vs. Black Africa) equally.

So from a genetic point, they might show us how the older North African people were...

[Ibericus]

Indeed, that is why I personally see the Canarians as a different people from the Spanish, much like the Galicians are.

Wait...Galicians different people from the Spanish ? :eek:

[Albion]

Wait...Galicians different people from the Spanish ? :eek:
Yeah, Why? Isn't having a seperate language and culture enough then?

Well I've always seen it like this: Catalans, Basques, Galicians, "Castillians" (aka "Spanish") as ethnicities, and the Canarians as a regional identity of the Castillians or an emerging ethnicity.

The Galicians do indeed appear to be a seperate people from the others, but these peoples are united in Spain under the NATIONALITY called "Spanish".

So yeah, seperate people from the Spanish, but same nationality.

In England the Cornish are a seperate ethnicity from the English, but they could be called the NATIONALITY "English" because they inhabit England, although this would probably offend some of them.

Anyway if I've got anything wrong then feel free to correct me. :)

[Ibericus]

Yeah, Why? Isn't having a seperate language and culture enough then?

Well I've always seen it like this: Catalans, Basques, Galicians, "Castillians" (aka "Spanish") as ethnicities, and the Canarians as a regional identity of the Castillians or an emerging ethnicity.

The Galicians do indeed appear to be a seperate people from the others, but these peoples are united in Spain under the NATIONALITY called "Spanish".

So yeah, seperate people from the Spanish, but same nationality.

In England the Cornish are a seperate ethnicity from the English, but they could be called the NATIONALITY "English" because they inhabit England, although this would probably offend some of them.

Anyway if I've got anything wrong then feel free to correct me. :)

Well, but you made an analogy between Canarians and spanish and you compared it with galicians, as if the gap was the same..of course not, for me all spaniards (except canarians with non-full spanish ancestry) are basically the same ethnically, but with different cultures, catalan, basque, galician, castillians, etc

[Albion]

Well, but you made an analogy between Canarians and spanish and you compared it with galicians, as if the gap was the same..of course not, for me all spaniards (except canarians with non-full spanish ancestry) are basically the same ethnically, but with different cultures, catalan, basque, galician, castillians, etc
ah, yes I understand. The Canarians are more like a regional identity of the Spanish than a ethnicity. Me comparing them to a proper ethnicity was probably wrong.
I think I know what you mean about the Spanish ethnicities, in the British Isles we share at least 70% of our genetics and ancestry. In Iberia most of the ethnicities are genetically related and from similar sources as well.

[Bloodeagle]

Teeth from 38 aboriginal remains of La Palma (Canary Islands) were analyzed for external and endogenous mitochondrial DNA control region sequences and for diagnostic coding positions. Informative sequences were obtained from 30 individuals (78.9%). The majority of lineages (93%) were from West Eurasian origin, being the rest (7%) from sub-Saharan African ascription. The bulk of the aboriginal haplotypes had exact matches in North Africa (70%). However, the indigenous Canarian sub-type U6b1, also detected in La Palma, has not yet been found in North Africa, the cradle of the U6 expansion. The most abundant H1 clade in La Palma, defined by transition 16260, is also very rare in North Africa. This means that the exact region from which the ancestors of the Canarian aborigines came has not yet been sampled or that they have been replaced by later human migrations. The high gene diversity found in La Palma (95.22.3), which is one of the farthest islands from the African continent, is of the same level than the previously found in the central island of Tenerife (92.42.8). This is against the supposition that the islands were colonized from the continent by island hopping and posterior isolation. On the other hand, the great similarity found between the aboriginal populations of La Palma and Tenerife is against the idea of an island-by-island independent maritime colonization without secondary contacts. Our data better fit to an island model with frequent migrations between islands.

Again the indigenous Canarians show up as mainly Eurasian/North African for ancestry. Not really a surprise that L lineages show up a little. Although a lot of them seem to be in North Africa from the slave trade, a couple are older and one shows an entry into Iberia about 20,000 years ago.

[Albion]

I just read the Guanches were found on all the main islands. This would back up the fact that they could sail, but I still belive that once they got to Fuertaventura getting to the rest of the islands would be relatively easy.
I still doubt they made it across the Atlantic, if they were that good a bunch of sailors then they would have visited Madeira, the Azores and probably even mainland Europe as well. However I belive their culture was better to develop in isolation, it gives them some uniqueness and difference from other former European cultures.

[Agrippa]

Even if single individuals made it over the Atlantic, this doesnt have to mean the founded the Meso- and South American civilisations. But thats all too much speculation right now. Until we find direct historical, material or genetic proofs...

Phoenicians and Egyptians were speculated about for influence in America too. Various seafaring people knew the Canarian islands.

[Albion]

Even if single individuals made it over the Atlantic, this doesnt have to mean the founded the Meso- and South American civilisations. But thats all too much speculation right now. Until we find direct historical, material or genetic proofs...

Phoenicians and Egyptians were speculated about for influence in America too. Various seafaring people knew the Canarian islands.
Exactly. A handfull of people at the most is all that any Guanches would have been in the Americas, even if many of them DID sail there en mass.
I highly doubt these few people could found a civilization. The Spanish only achieved this because they had advanced weapons and diseases.

[Erik]

With interests and pleasure I read the message about the Guanchos. The ancient Guanchos had the same skull form as the Cro-Magnons and Aurignacs did. The Cro-Magnonid Guanchos had blue eyes and fair hair. Is this not the prove that the ancient French Cro-Magnons and Aurignacs had fair hair and blue eyes? So more than 30.000 years faired haired people lived in West- Europe.

What is the relations between Berbers-Guanchos and Scandinavians and ancient Germanic tribes? Are they cousins? Do the Guanchos have a lot of haplogroup R1b?

[Agrippa]

Exactly. A handfull of people at the most is all that any Guanches would have been in the Americas, even if many of them DID sail there en mass.
I highly doubt these few people could found a civilization. The Spanish only achieved this because they had advanced weapons and diseases.

Well, honestly even a few people could found a civilisation, I'm quite that happened more than once, yet its an extraordinary chance to have a full success - we can just say possible, but not very likely.
And I believe that most if not all human races are capable of founding a civilisation under the right circumstances. The way the do it, the far they can go and how effective they work is more determined by racial-biological qualities most likely, but a basic civilisation needs just a few extraordinary people and a mass which follows.

If the Guanches founded anything of importance in America, it was most likely a peaceful and inspiring way they used. There are some legends in some Indian ancient cultures which could be interpreted that way - that foreigners came blabla, but thats all, like I said, no direct proof.


With interests and pleasure I read the message about the Guanchos. The ancient Guanchos had the same skull form as the Cro-Magnons and Aurignacs did. The Cro-Magnonid Guanchos had blue eyes and fair hair. Is this not the prove that the ancient French Cro-Magnons and Aurignacs had fair hair and blue eyes? So more than 30.000 years faired haired people lived in West- Europe.

We dont know which hair, eye and skin color the early Homo sapiens variants in Europe of the Cromagnoid and Aurignacoid kind, with additional more exotic forms here and there like Grimaldi etc. had, but most likely they were still darker. We might only know it if using advanced genetic analysis of the bones in question - if there is enough genetic material left.

Guanches however came to the islands much later it seems:

were the first known inhabitants of the Canary Islands, having migrated to the archipelago sometime between 1000 BC and 100 BC or perhaps earlier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches

Even if they came much earlier, Neolithic influences were present in any case.

[Don]

Many in Canary Islands call, in a offensive way , the rest of the Spaniards "godos" (gothics)... in some kind of assimilation of the conquest of Canary Islands by Castilians, implying guanches defeat.

...

We were talking about this in another thread with agrippa. Seems there is quite controversy in the question of Guanches.

[Erik]

But what is the relation between the Guanchos and the Germanic tribes
and the Scandinavians? How did the fair hair and blue eyes arise with
the Guanchos? They must have a lot of commun ancestors with the Germanic
tribes. Are the haplogroups R1b and I frequent with the Guanchos?

[Ibericus]

But what is the relation between the Guanchos and the Germanic tribes
and the Scandinavians? How did the fair hair and blue eyes arise with
the Guanchos? They must have a lot of commun ancestors with the Germanic
tribes. Are the haplogroups R1b and I frequent with the Guanchos?

No, the Guanchos or other Berbers are not R1b nor I. They are mostly E-M81, the fair hair probably came from the european female waves that brought mtDNA H and V which is also present in Berbers. They have also their particular U6 haplogroup

[Erik]

But from where and when did come the fair haired women? From south of
France during the Ice Age?

Erik

[Stefan]

But from where and when did come the fair haired women? From south of
France during the Ice Age?

Erik

I don't think it is possible to tell exactly when the mutation(s) for light hair and eye pigmentation started to arise, and when they became common among the greater populations. We could assume that it originated in the refugee, paleolithic populations of Southern-Central Europe(Iberia, the Alpines, and the Balkans), but then there must be an explanation for how it is "relatively" common among other non-European Caucasoid groups that have very little known Paleolithic European origin. I think rather that the mutation(s) that caused light pigmentation, may have originated before there was much divergence among Caucasoids(or maybe only a divergence of Cromagnoid vs. Aurignacoid. The previous being more cold-adapted and therefore lighter pigmented overall.) The only reason it could've been more common among Paleolithic Europeans though is because of low populations within the Ice Age period; which would've allowed for recessive traits to become more common and prevail over dominant ones, when otherwise they would have became diluted or mixed. This being because of lower genetic deviation and more inbreeding.

However, as time would've passed by and because both the Paleolithic Europeans and the Mesolithic and Neolithic waves that later came from the Near East and Central Asia(as evident by YDNA distribution) contribute to Modern Europeans, nobody is of a 1:1 lineage, nor even close to that, from these Paleolithic Europeans.

Some generalizations we can make though.

- Cromagnids(and derivative groups) tend to be more cold adapted than Aurignacids, because of that we may assume that light pigmentation is more common among Cromagnids, although they have ton of variation, either through mixture or true adaptation.

- Northern Europe tends to be less Aurignacoid influenced than Southern Europe, which correlates a bit with pigmentation, if the previous description is accurate.

- Pigmentation could change fast. Either through mixture, adaptation, or various other reasons. Because of this, many and I do note "many" types and individuals won't fall within these previous generalizations.

- You can't really attribute a Y-DNA or mtDNA with phenotype. You can speculate on the prevelance of them in a population that may contain a specific trait, but you cannot attribute it to that chromosome.

Please note though, that I'm probably all over the place, and I'm not very confident with this semi-baseless description of mine. So I'm most definitely open for revisions or corrections from others.

[Erik]

Many thanks for your explanation. Very interesting. I read that a Danish
professor discovered that blue eyes arose in a single person about
9000 BC. See Dienekes Blog.

It is a mystery for me that the Guanchos, the people of Tarim, some
Slavic and Scythian tribes and the Germanics had fair hair. There must be
a relation between them. For example there was a linguistic relation and
a haplogroup relation between the Scythians and Germanic tribes.
But about the Aurignacs: I supposed that they had red/brown hair, course
and rugged faces. They have nothing to do with the actual mediterrians
who now lived in south Europe. According to me the mediterranians came
from Asia Minor. The descendants of Aurignacs live now in Ireland and
Norway (Coon: Races of Europe). See also www.peoplingeurope.com

[Ibericus]

Many thanks for your explanation. Very interesting. I read that a Danish
professor discovered that blue eyes arose in a single person about
9000 BC. See Dienekes Blog.

It is a mystery for me that the Guanchos, the people of Tarim, some
Slavic and Scythian tribes and the Germanics had fair hair. There must be
a relation between them. For example there was a linguistic relation and
a haplogroup relation between the Scythians and Germanic tribes.
But about the Aurignacs: I supposed that they had red/brown hair, course
and rugged faces. They have nothing to do with the actual mediterrians
who now lived in south Europe. According to me the mediterranians came
from Asia Minor. The descendants of Aurignacs live now in Ireland and
Norway (Coon: Races of Europe). See also www.peoplingeurope.com
Also eastern Spain, Italy, etc were part of the Aurignac culture and well it's not true that mediterranids came from Asia Minor. Because for example, Spain has the highest percentage of H1&H3 mtDNA, which originated there from Cro-Magnon iberians, and expanded and are now the most common subclades in Western and northern Europe. Also, Iberia has a very high percentage of R1b, which is of Indo-european origin (proto-Celt P312) , so no , they are not from Asia Minor.

[Agrippa]

Many thanks for your explanation. Very interesting. I read that a Danish
professor discovered that blue eyes arose in a single person about
9000 BC. See Dienekes Blog.

It is a mystery for me that the Guanchos, the people of Tarim, some
Slavic and Scythian tribes and the Germanics had fair hair. There must be
a relation between them. For example there was a linguistic relation and
a haplogroup relation between the Scythians and Germanic tribes.
But about the Aurignacs: I supposed that they had red/brown hair, course
and rugged faces. They have nothing to do with the actual mediterrians
who now lived in south Europe. According to me the mediterranians came
from Asia Minor. The descendants of Aurignacs live now in Ireland and
Norway (Coon: Races of Europe). See also www.peoplingeurope.com

I'm always sceptical about such things, because the same allel could have popped up more than once. As Coon and others pointed out, light eyes as a minority element exist among almost all Europid racial forms, ALL of them, be it to mixture-geneflow or repeated mutations.

With Aurignacoids we generally speak of the leptodolichomorphic Europids. There were different strata among them, the most primitive were the real Aurignacids of the Palaeolithic times, the most progressive became dominant in the Neolithic times (Nordid, Mediterranid, Orientalid, Indid) and represent the bulk of the Europid race today.

Coons idea was that forms like Bruenn (which was leptodolichomorphic) and others had Neandertal admixture, which produced robust-archaic half-sapiens hybrids, that are his "Upper Palaeolithics" ("Brunn and Borreby"). That was his idea, not too much others shared it and today you can forget it largely - unless we find genetic proofs for:
- Significant Neandertal admixture
- That this admixture is stronger in the Cromagnoid/oversized areas

I doubt both.


Also eastern Spain, Italy, etc were part of the Aurignac culture and well it's not true that mediterranids came from Asia Minor. Because for example, Spain has the highest percentage of H1&H3 mtDNA, which originated there from Cro-Magnon iberians, and expanded and are now the most common subclades in Western and northern Europe. Also, Iberia has a very high percentage of R1b, which is of Indo-european origin (proto-Celt P312) , so no , they are not from Asia Minor.

Ultimately all Europids came from the Near East-India, the only question which remains is when did the respective branches come to Europe, from which direction and with which steps in between the Near East-India and their arrival in Europe.

The question for R1b in particular is now did it come over Near East-North Africa (least likely, but still we have to explain R1b in North African-Saharan-Subsaharan groups), Near East-Anatolia-South Eastern Europe or Near East-India-Central Asia or Near East-Central Asia, India-Central Asia, Central Asia

I would be also very careful with attributing subvariants of R1b to something like "Proto-Celts" already.

If the new chronology of R1b is correct, Aurignacoid/Nordid-Suedeuropid variants might have come with Neolithic and Indoeuropean groups from outside to Iberia, rather than evolving from earlier Mesolithic or even older inhabitants...

Thats something we will know, if at all, when we know more about the genetics of the prehistoric skeletons and modern genetic reconstructions - analysis.

Now we can just speculate and say whats definitely least likely - though even that might change soon again.

Its quite interesting if you think about it, that roughly half of the Europid race's males descends from one guy who lived most likely in the Near East some ten thousands of years ago, carrying R.

Haplogroup R is definitely the core group of Europids/Caucasoids, together with IJ we have most males...

Interesting though that some R* managed to come to Australian Aborigines, most likely from India.

[Don]

R1B1 is not linked to Protocelts in your opinion?
R1B1 seems to be significant in western Europe, in particular in Spain or other countries with protocelts (I'm, of course, not referring to that obsolete tale of central european celtic of hallstadt), like Ireland/Scotland, whose "celts" came from northern shores of Iberia, a region whose ancient populations rooted to the land are "celtic" tribes in plateau (center) and northwestern shores.

http://www.satrapa1.com/articulos/antiguedad/iberos/hispania1.jpg

History and population genetics points us that protocelts and R1B1 are suspiciously linked. If aren't those tribes we call "protocelts", those worshipers of stones, fountains and severed heads, who are those wearers of R1B1 that dwelt west and conform actual core of western population genes?

[Agrippa]

I'm, of course, not referring to that obsolete tale of central european celtic of hallstadt

Its Hallstatt and I know some things about prehistory and most I know points to this "tale" being correct.

However, I'm open minded, so if you have infos...

Iberia was inhabited mainly by Iberians and later Celtiberians, the latter being the result of Keltic expansions from France.

I dont know for sure what to think of R1b1 and its relations, but it might have been an earlier, pre-Indoeuropeans Neolithic wave too and if it was about Indoeuropeans, we might consider other peoples, still unknown, no Celts in the narrower sense of the word.

Looking at the Megalithic and Bell Beaker people, both presumably not Indoeuropean, we might have some candidates for R1b too.

I doubt the Celts were at any time that strong in Iberia that they could have produced the R1b1 distribution, yet I dont know for sure.

[Don]

Its Hallstatt and I know some things about prehistory and most I know points to this "tale" being correct.

However, I'm open minded, so if you have infos...

Iberia was inhabited mainly by Iberians and later Celtiberians, the latter being the result of Keltic expansions from France.

I dont know for sure what to think of R1b1 and its relations, but it might have been an earlier, pre-Indoeuropeans Neolithic wave too and if it was about Indoeuropeans, we might consider other peoples, still unknown, no Celts in the narrower sense of the word.

Looking at the Megalithic and Bell Beaker people, both presumably not Indoeuropean, we might have some candidates for R1b too.

I doubt the Celts were at any time that strong in Iberia that they could have produced the R1b1 distribution, yet I dont know for sure.


I understand your statement parting from the obvious obsolete and traditional definition of "celts".

There is a great controversy in the definition and delimitation of celtic tribes, nowadays, as you know perfectly, revised. Hollywood, american nordicism and pangermanism is harmful for our recostruction of our roots.

I only can asure you that the core of Spain, in particular plateau, north and northwestern, is celtic in the most strict and logic term. Of course this opinion is not shared by a hollywood jewish director.

The heart of the controversy is that these ancient tribes of Iberia, France and later Ireland Scotland England have been, in my opinion, robed, in the cultural sense, by some pangermanism or propagandists to deform and create some kind of germanic tribe called "celt".

The true celts are much more ancient than we think in my opinion, of course previous to central europe and hallstadt immigrations.

Yes, bell beakers, megalithic and original western populations, could have evolved into those western cultures that fit with the name of Celts. And they did this process in west. Celts are no homogenic. And they share a lot of elements of those ancient "protoeuropeans".

New info about this questions only supports my visions and makes more obsolete the traditional hallstadt "celts".



This is a traditional element of "celtic tribes", maybe the most representative, isn't it?
http://images04.olx.es/ui/1/42/24/7903824_1.jpg
http://images.quebarato.com.br/photos/big/B/A/4188BA_1.jpg
http://www.gaitaseduardorepresas.com/nuevacarpeta/100_1642.JPG
Only in West.
Is a mere example.

Time will tell, as time let us "rediscover" that those paradigmatic celts of Ireland, considered as the paradigm of celtic, came from south, not central europe. And they are much more ancestral that traditional history tells.
Time will tell.

[Agrippa]

There is a great controversy in the definition and delimitation of celtic tribes, nowadays, as you know perfectly, revised. Hollywood, american nordicism and pangermanism is harmful for our recostruction of our roots.

I only can asure you that the core of Spain, in particular plateau, north and northwestern, is celtic in the most strict and logic term. Of course this opinion is not shared by a hollywood jewish director.

Erm, I could quote 100 archaeologists and historians, that has nothing to do with Hollywood...


The heart of the controversy is that these ancient tribes of Iberia, France and later Ireland Scotland England have been, in my opinion, robed, in the cultural sense, by some pangermanism or propagandists to deform and create some kind of germanic tribe called "celt".

You might excuse but that sounds a little bit - well, lets say "strange".


The true celts are much more ancient than we think in my opinion, of course previous to central europe and hallstadt immigrations.

As I said its Hallstatt and actually the true Celtic phase, of Celts as we know them, started with the La Tene culture primarily, even though there are regional exceptions for that rule. Hallstatt was the "Proto-Celtic", "Early Celtic" phase.

If you mean something different than the ethnolinguistuc, archaeolithic and historic group of the Celtic people, than called it differently.


Yes, bell beakers, megalithic and original western populations, evolved into those western cultures that fit with the name of Celts. And they did this process in west.

Those trends came from the West, but Celts themselves, probably a fusion of those elements with Corded Culture and successors, appeared in Central Europe in the form we know them.


Time will tell, as time let us "rediscover" that those celts of Ireland, considered as the paradigm of celtic, came from south, not central europe. Time will tell.

All continental Celtic group lived South of Ireland, so thats most likely correct. ;)

It doesnt matter where they came from, crucial is that the Hallstatt culture and La Tene came from Central Europe.

We have a clear archaeological chronology, I dont know were you see other proofs...


Only in West.
Is a mere example.

First of all the Hallstatt culture is an iron age culture with a certain inventar, whether people play today this or that instrument in a region has nothing to do with it.

Even more so it disappeared in various regions, but was present there.

You can see that in various Medieval depictions and Medieval musical reconstructions, before that time we dont even know where it existed and where not.

Thats modern Celtic/British/Western and Balkan etc. inventar, but no proof for anything regarding Celtic history and prehistory in this context.

[Ibericus]

Ultimately all Europids came from the Near East-India, the only question which remains is when did the respective branches come to Europe, from which direction and with which steps in between the Near East-India and their arrival in Europe.
It's not true that europids came from near-east-India, do you have any evidence ? Europeans are a mix of 3 different waves :
1. Cro-Magnon (IJ, I)
2. Indo-europeans (R1a, R1b)
3. near-eastern farmers (E, J, G)


The question for R1b in particular is now did it come over Near East-North Africa (least likely, but still we have to explain R1b in North African-Saharan-Subsaharan groups), Near East-Anatolia-South Eastern Europe or Near East-India-Central Asia or Near East-Central Asia, India-Central Asia, Central Asia
This is the best explanation I have seen so far :
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#R1b

That R1b came via Anatolia and the black sea, from indo-europeans


I would be also very careful with attributing subvariants of R1b to something like "Proto-Celts" already.

If the new chronology of R1b is correct, Aurignacoid/Nordid-Suedeuropid variants might have come with Neolithic and Indoeuropean groups from outside to Iberia, rather than evolving from earlier Mesolithic or even older inhabitants...

No, the aurignacoid was Cro-Magnon with haplogorup U5, who were not R1b,

The branch of R1b considered proto-Celt is P312, while the U106 branch is considered Germanic.

[Ibericus]

Its Hallstatt and I know some things about prehistory and most I know points to this "tale" being correct.

However, I'm open minded, so if you have infos...

Iberia was inhabited mainly by Iberians and later Celtiberians, the latter being the result of Keltic expansions from France.

I dont know for sure what to think of R1b1 and its relations, but it might have been an earlier, pre-Indoeuropeans Neolithic wave too and if it was about Indoeuropeans, we might consider other peoples, still unknown, no Celts in the narrower sense of the word.

Looking at the Megalithic and Bell Beaker people, both presumably not Indoeuropean, we might have some candidates for R1b too.

I doubt the Celts were at any time that strong in Iberia that they could have produced the R1b1 distribution, yet I dont know for sure.

Modern scholarship, however, has clearly proven that Celtic presence and influences were most substantial in Iberia (with perhaps the highest settlement saturation in Western Europe), particularly in the western and northern regions. So, probably Iberia , had about the same or more Celtic settlement than Ireland, for example. The archeology is overwhelming.

Most of the R1b in Iberia is the branch P312, considered proto-Celt. The Iberians had mtDNA H3, H1, which is the most common in Iberia, and all Western Europe

[Ibericus]

If you mean something different than the ethnolinguistuc, archaeolithic and historic group of the Celtic people, than called it differently.

Those trends came from the West, but Celts themselves, probably a fusion of those elements with Corded Culture and successors, appeared in Central Europe in the form we know them.
All continental Celtic group lived South of Ireland, so thats most likely correct. ;)

It doesnt matter where they came from, crucial is that the Hallstatt culture and La Tene came from Central Europe.

We have a clear archaeological chronology, I dont know were you see other proofs...

It's still not clear as where the Celts came from. There is another theory :


"It seems that what we are forgetting here is that Celtic culture may not have originated in south-central Europe at all. Rather, according to globally acclaimed archaeologists, Barry Cunliffe and John Koch, among others, Celticity spread from southwest Spain and Portugal - the starting point region. There is compelling archaeological and linguistic evidence suggesting that the Tartessians were the original Celts. A very substantial ongoing study led by Koch, with participants from many fields, could ultimately prove that there is no Central European Celtic origin. Quite possibly, Celticity spread from the southwest to the east and north.

http://uhblog.ulsterheritage.com/200...one-celts.html

http://towerofbabel.com/2008/07/10/c...ays-professo/

http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.c.../Location/DBBC

[Agrippa]

It's not true that europids came from near-east-India, do you have any evidence ? Europeans are a mix of 3 different waves :
1. Cro-Magnon (IJ, I)
2. Indo-europeans (R1a, R1b)
3. near-eastern farmers (E, J, G)

If there are such connections, they are rather percentage wise, proportionally, especially if its about 1) and 2).

IJ is rather theoretical, to claim its Cromagnoid or simply first wave Homo sapiens in Europe, well, I dunno.


This is the best explanation I have seen so far :
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#R1b

Looks reasonable, though not everything is proven or equally likely.


No, the aurignacoid was Cro-Magnon with haplogorup U5, who were not R1b,

Thats mtDNA though.


Modern scholarship, however, has clearly proven that Celtic presence and influences were most substantial in Iberia (with perhaps the highest settlement saturation in Western Europe), particularly in the western and northern regions. So, probably Iberia , had about the same or more Celtic settlement than Ireland, for example. The archeology is overwhelming.

Its possible that there was more geneflow to Iberia than f.e. Ireland, yet Iberia was more densely populated even before the Celts we might assume and that the Celtiberian and Celtic culture flourished doesnt mean the pre-Celtic inhabitants were displaced.


Most of the R1b in Iberia is the branch P312, considered proto-Celt. The Iberians had mtDNA H3, H1, which is the most common in Iberia, and all Western Europe

Those mtDNA variants are classic Europid ones, as for the Proto-Celtic R1b branch - I accept R1a1a totally as Indoeuropean because they found it in the bones, mummies and present inhabitants alike.

Now if its about R1b, we just have different chronologies, any Celtic remains tested yet? And even if they had it, if the chronology is wrong, the expansion of this marker might predate the Celtic expansion.

But of course, its possible, I dont say its not, I just want to tell you that its better to be careful about such ideas, because with new data, they might be refuted again, we aren't sure yet - from what I know.

[Ibericus]

Those mtDNA variants are classic Europid ones, as for the Proto-Celtic R1b branch - I accept R1a1a totally as Indoeuropean because they found it in the bones, mummies and present inhabitants alike.
Actually H1 and H3 are of Iberian origin, and have still highest percentage in Iberia.

[Don]

I insist that the "celts" in the collective imaginarium don't fit with la tene or central european cultures as it fits with ancient populations (and modern) of western europe. Maybe these cultures of central europe should be the ones who need to change their names to another one.

I trust much more the legends and histories of the own cultures as well as the ancient informs as the romans did very carefully and quite objectively, than the theories of many modern anthropologists, as we all know, with much more subjectivity and dark interests that a scientist can have.

I insist in that, if any of us could go back in time to central europe in hallstadt culture period and Iberia in pre-central europe massive invasions of those some people still call celts, would have no doubt in identifying western cultures as celtic due to the traits of those ancient dwellers of west share with the imaginarium of Celtism.

[Ibericus]

I insist that the "celts" in the collective imaginarium don't fit with la tene or central european cultures as it fits with ancient populations (and modern) of western europe. Maybe these cultures of central europe should be the ones who need to change their names to another one.

I trust much more the legends and histories of the own cultures as well as the ancient informs as the romans did very carefully and quite objectively, than the theories of many modern anthropologists, as we all know, with much more subjectivity and dark interests that a scientist can have.

I insist in that, if any of us could go back in time to central europe in hallstadt culture period and Iberia in pre-central europe massive invasions of those some people still call celts, would have no doubt in identifying western cultures as celtic due to the traits of those ancient dwellers of west share with the imaginarium of Celtism.

Yes, Cristiano Viejo, scientists are studying about it :

""It seems that what we are forgetting here is that Celtic culture may not have originated in south-central Europe at all. Rather, according to globally acclaimed archaeologists, Barry Cunliffe and John Koch, among others, Celticity spread from southwest Spain and Portugal - the starting point region. There is compelling archaeological and linguistic evidence suggesting that the Tartessians were the original Celts. A very substantial ongoing study led by Koch, with participants from many fields, could ultimately prove that there is no Central European Celtic origin. Quite possibly, Celticity spread from the southwest to the east and north."

http://uhblog.ulsterheritage.com/200...one-celts.html

http://towerofbabel.com/2008/07/10/c...ays-professo/

http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.c.../Location/DBBC

[Agrippa]

I insist that the "celts" in the collective imaginarium don't fit with la tene or central european cultures as it fits with ancient populations (and modern) of western europe.

Celts = ethnolinguistic group, associated with a certain archaeological complex and chronology in most regions

ARE NOT

the same as any Western European race. Simple put, those which were first carriers of the new "Celtic language and culture" are the original Celts, regardless of racial relations.

The "Atlantic facade" was most likely, after all we know, "Celticised" rather than originally Celtic.

But on the other hand, the Central European cultures didnt came out of nothing, they had predecessors too, now that becomes more complicated...

[Ibericus]

Celts = ethnolinguistic group, associated with a certain archaeological complex and chronology in most regions

ARE NOT

the same as any Western European race. Simple put, those which were first carriers of the new "Celtic language and culture" are the original Celts, regardless of racial relations.

The "Atlantic facade" was most likely, after all we know, "Celticised" rather than originally Celtic.

But on the other hand, the Central European cultures didnt came out of nothing, they had predecessors too, now that becomes more complicated...
Read the Koch studies and tell me what do you think

[Osweo]

Please, Iberians, settle down. I know you're in love with your Iberia as 'Celtic Urheimat' theory, but it is FAR from fully proven and accepted.

We need to look at first principles.

What are the linguistic relatives of Celtic?
- Italic, Germanic, and every other Indo-European language that was ever spoken from Cadiz to the Altai Mountains and the Ganges. The best theories for the common ancestor tongue place it in an area from the Don to the Danube. NOT in the far west, where there are other different linguistic familes known.

But Celtic might have differentiated from IE first in Iberia???....

What was the linguistic situation of Iberia in the earliest documented period?
- There was a Celtic area, to the northwest, an IE (similar to Celtic and Italic) isolate in the west - Lusitanian, a non-IE Iberian zone to the southeast, traces of old Tartessian in the southwest, and non-IE Vasconic in the northeast. Celtic speech in this period was found from Anatolia to the Balkans, southern Germany, Czechia, northern Italy, Gaul, Iberia and the British Isles.

If Celts managed to spread their language so far, why couldn't they manage to make all of their supposed 'homeland' (if you believe Koch et al) Celtic?!??
- They came from outside of the Iberian Peninsula. They managed to control the same areas that later central European invaders took - the Suevi and Goths. In the centre of Iberia, they fused with the natives to become 'Celtiberians' - a special new people, born from the encounter of natives and wider-European invaders.
- Iberia as Celtic Urheimat = nonsense. :)


PS. I will read the Koch 'studies' if anyone can send them to me. :)

[Ibericus]

Please, Iberians, settle down. I know you're in love with your Iberia as 'Celtic Urheimat' theory, but it is FAR from fully proven and accepted.

We need to look at first principles.

What are the linguistic relatives of Celtic?
- Italic, Germanic, and every other Indo-European language that was ever spoken from Cadiz to the Altai Mountains and the Ganges. The best theories for the common ancestor tongue place it in an area from the Don to the Danube. NOT in the far west, where there are other different linguistic familes known.

But Celtic might have differentiated from IE first in Iberia???....

What was the linguistic situation of Iberia in the earliest documented period?
- There was a Celtic area, to the northwest, an IE (similar to Celtic and Italic) isolate in the west - Lusitanian, a non-IE Iberian zone to the southeast, traces of old Tartessian in the southwest, and non-IE Vasconic in the northeast. Celtic speech in this period was found from Anatolia to the Balkans, southern Germany, Czechia, northern Italy, Gaul, Iberia and the British Isles.

If Celts managed to spread their language so far, why couldn't they manage to make all of their supposed 'homeland' (if you believe Koch et al) Celtic?!??
- They came from outside of the Iberian Peninsula. They managed to control the same areas that later central European invaders took - the Suevi and Goths. In the centre of Iberia, they fused with the natives to become 'Celtiberians' - a special new people, born from the encounter of natives and wider-European invaders.
- Iberia as Celtic Urheimat = nonsense. :)


PS. I will read the Koch 'studies' if anyone can send them to me. :)

I wouldn't be so sure without first reading all the studies going on..But at the moment I still believe the La Tene/Hallstatt theory, time will tell.

[Ibericus]

What are the linguistic relatives of Celtic?
Not relatives of Celtic, but celtic languages themselves


What was the linguistic situation of Iberia in the earliest documented period?
Lusitanian(celtic), Tartassian(celtic), Celtiberian(celtic), Iberian


If Celts managed to spread their language so far, why couldn't they manage to make all of their supposed 'homeland' (if you believe Koch et al) Celtic?!??
Because of the Romans..

[Amapola]

I don't give a damn for Celts... and I don't understand all that Celtic-love.

[Amapola]

They are overrated.

[Agrippa]

I don't give a damn for Celts... and I don't understand all that Celtic-love.

Well, even some authors and professors know why. They are ancient warlike, tribal people which are ready to project romantic and idealistic ideas of a "golden age" on them. Partly because many people dont know enough about them.

Additionally they were very widespread, so a lot of people can identify with them.

Also the modern Celts are seen as friendly traditional people with an interesting folclore etc.

They are ideal - even though they were quite aggressive and expansive in their high phase - for a defensive stand many Europeans have today.

Romans and Germanics were both warlike and successful people, finally they founded realms, even in an imperialistic way. That was a good thing as long as Europe was healthy and had a good attitude towards itself, something to strive for.

Now, after WW2, the Celts are the more harmless folclore variant. F.e. in Germany the whole "Celtic phenomenon" contrasts DIRECTLY the disregard for the Germanic ancestors, traditions and ideas. Even if they were not always that different. Being interested in Germanics has the "National Socialist" and Romans the "Imperial" and "Fascist Touch".

Celts on the other hand being more often perceived as the friendly people with the backpipe, they are a more "politically correct" archaic identity for many.

Obviously too much in favour of Rom and Germanics is no option for all Western Europeans, Celtic culture on the other hand was more widespread too.

But I really link that to the political change in Europe too, in Germany its absolutely obvious. Before the re-eduction, Celts were just a minor subject and rather associated with the French. Now they are "en vogue" for those which have often romantic and esoteric ideas, but dont want to be "aggressive Germanic pagans", because being "too Germanic" is something - uhoh...

Romans, somewhat problematic too for modern weaklings.

That the Celts were sometimes head hunters and quite brutal conquerors too doesnt matter, they are just the "nice option" for a certain kind of spectrum.

I'm interested in many ethnicities and historical groups, but too much of the "Celtomania", especially in comparison to other, for some people even more important ancestors, is a defensive political signal, in Germany-Austria-Switzerland for sure...

Also in Britain the Celts being often seen as "the first suppressed" people, not that they start to talk about that Celts are "the blacks of the past" and the like. If I remember right, something like that was said in a BBC documentary even.

Recently they were used in a documentary for "culturally progressive", decentral and feminist people, much more like "modern Europeans" than Germanics and Romans. They fulfil this Romanticism for some.

However, Celts were a great European and Indoeuropean people without a doubt, but I think certain things have to be put into a context. Especially in those areas which have no real living Celtic tradition...

[Don]

They are overrated.

...until the moment when will be proven that the core of the celtic culture we know was and is in Spain.

[Amapola]

...until the moment when will be proven that the core of the celtic culture we know was and is in Spain.

Well, Cristiano....
The problem is WHAT the celts are. :confused:
To be honest I have been a bit surprised at my genetic similarity with some people with Irish ancestry....

Personally I DO think that there was a migration :p of Iberian genes to the Isles before the existance of the Celts and linked to the Megalitic expansion.

[Don]

Well, Cristiano....
The problem is WHAT the celts are. :confused:
To be honest I have been a bit surprised at my genetic similarity with some people with Irish ancestry....

Personally I DO think that there was a migration :p of Iberian genes to the Isles before the existance of the Celts and linked to the Megalitic expansion.

That's my idea. The celts as we know them, share a lot of elements with those Iberian-to-Britain megalithic cultures. Their druids, cults and cultural traits are associated with the popular Idea of Celtism.

If the idea of "modern" central european celtism is defended, then we should rebuild them and take out from them a LOT of elements that were stolen from those ancient westerner cultures agrippa said the Bagpipe... let's begin with that.

I'm not surprised of your similarities with (ancestral) irish population. The romans had no doubt about the similarities in the fishing styles, cults and phenotype between the "celts" of both western regions not related with central europeans.
These "celtic" irish and Scottish themselves tell in their legends about their origins the same, Míl Espáine or milesians and all that.

We have clearly one problem with 2 solutions: we keep the idea of central european celts, taking out a lot of elements stolen from those ancient western populations, including the druidic litic worship, bagpipes and a lot of things that will left those Hallstadt cultures almost nude... and no one could still classify them as "celts" as we understand them

...or we keep the idea of celts rewriting history and calling these old old cultures of west that, and the central europeans cultures and all those massive expansions with another name.

[Osweo]

Well, Cristiano....
The problem is WHAT the celts are. :confused:
Simply different things in different times, with differences in substrate and adstrate influences. The common denominator, the shared heritage, is that of the initial Celtic speakers, located most sensibly in a belt north of the Alps, from Burgundy to Vienna.

Personally I DO think that there was a migration :p of Iberian genes to the Isles before the existance of the Celts and linked to the Megalitic expansion.
Definitely, but perhaps not necessarily Iberian in the sense of the Mediterranean language and people of that name.

I believe in Celtic migrations from Iberia to the British Isles too though. Before our co-members get too excited, I should state that this was one of several Celtic migrations into my archipelago. Irish legend points to at least three waves, with Britain, Gaul and Iberia as the points of origin.

This just means that Celts crossed southern Gaul, the Pyrenees, lived in Iberia, and sent some offshoots on secondary migrations.

That's my idea. The celts as we know them, share a lot of elements with those Iberian-to-Britain megalithic cultures. Their druids, cults and cultural traits are associated with the popular Idea of Celtism.
I groan... :p

If the idea of "modern" central european celtism is defended, then we should rebuild them and take out from them a LOT of elements that were stolen from those ancient westerner cultures agrippa said the Bagpipe... let's begin with that.
That's all been done decades ago.

I'm not surprised of your similarities with (ancestral) irish population. The romans had no doubt about the similarities in the fishing styles, cults and phenotype between the "celts" of both western regions not related with central europeans.
Local pre-Celtic commonality in the Atlantic facade easily explains this. You don't need the Celts here.


These "celtic" irish and Scottish themselves tell in their legends about their origins the same, Míl Espáine or milesians and all that.
Miledh Espaine was the creation of Christian Irish monks, forging false pedigrees for their royal masters for distinctly political purposes, i.e. to strengthen the claim of the upstart Ui Neill Dynasty, by giving it a fabled ancient origin, going back millennia, when in fact their rise dates only to the late Roman period. There are several Irish sources that contradict the Milesian legend, and these are based on far older native traditions. The learned men who invented Miledh Espaine in historical times even gave him a LATIN NAME. He is none other than miletus Hispaniae - 'the soldier of Spain'! They used the work of Isidore of Sevilla to craft this legend, an encyclopaedic work much respected at the time.

We have clearly one problem with 2 solutions: we keep the idea of central european celts, taking out a lot of elements stolen from those ancient western populations,
Not 'stolen'. The descendants of the ancient populations STILL have these things, after all!

including the druidic litic worship,
Druids can not be attached to the megalithic peoples, except in very tenuous distant ways. They are a very Indo-European priesthood, with a good analogue at the far end of that world; the Brahmins of India. :rolleyes:

bagpipes and a lot of things that will left those Hallstadt cultures almost nude... and no one could still classify them as "celts" as we understand them
Nobody EVER claimed the Halstatt Celts played bagpipes. Bagpipes are SO unnecessary to the idea of 'Celticity' that to talk so much about them is absurd. The Welsh have no piping tradition. The Albanians do... :rolleyes2: Bagpipes were common in England in the past, and still are in Northumberland beyond the Tees.

...or we keep the idea of celts rewriting history and calling these old old cultures of west that, and the central europeans cultures and all those massive expansions with another name.
Celts in Iberia overlay older populations. The linguistic traces of their predecessors are well documented. Celts in Iberia were so 'new' that they had only managed to slightly Celticise the Iberians in much of the territory. Eastern Gaul and the Alps on the other hand have almost NO trace of any older language spoken there. The trunk of the Celtic tree is to be found there. Your land was home to one of its branches. A great and blossoming branch, but the roots were elsewhere.

[StonyArabia]

The Berbers are genetic isolate. They have no relationship to Celts or Iberians. Those tests were based on blood tests and the high frequency of negative blood types shared by both peoples. Now with modern technology and better testing methods the Berber seem to be a genetic isolate. They are not related to any people. They seem to have more affinity toward the Near East, but this is to be expected if they are Afro-Asiatic peoples. Even then they don't cluster with the Near Easterners. In fact there is a sharp genetic divide between Berbers and Europeans. Iberians and Celts are no more related to them than Slavs or Germanics are.

As for blondism it does occur in almost all Caucasoid groups but at a minority. fair hair and light eyes should not indicate a common genetic bond between Europeans and non-Europeans. Outside of Europe the highest blond rates occur in Syria, and even more so than Iran or Afghanistan. North Africa does not even reach the levels of Syria. The light people from the MENA region tend to be Syrians and physically they are the closest people in physical looks to Europeans.

As for the Arab genetic impact upon North Africa it is weak. The Arab impact can be said to be mostly linguistic and cultural. North Africans for example still contain high levels of E3b that is specific to their population, and the mtDNA seems mostly to be of native stock. The J1 they carry is different from the one that is found in the Arabs for example. However Semitic blood did come to North Africa via the Jews and Phoenicians who probably brought the so called "Arab" type to the region, and as well Armenoid.

As for the Guanches themselves the darker element clearly was more dominant. The Berbers on average a slightly darker than Southern Euros and the average Levantine is lighter than they are. In fact Columbus noted that the Guanache people of the Canary Islands had the same skin complexion as the Tainos who were of Amerindian stock, the difference was the Guanche were Caucasians. Like all other Caucasian groups some of the population did exhibit fair and light eyes.

The article seems to say that the darker element and shorter element came from mixing with Arabs. This is unfounded genetically and even culturally. Since if they mixed with the Arabs, the adoption of Islam and some Arabian cultural attributes would have been found. There is none. Semitic influence might have come via the Phoenicians but even this is doubtful.

It seems that there is a romantic affair with the mentioned people as having some form of superior civilization. Historically the Mesoamerican civilization was far greater superior to that of the Canary Islands. The Canary Islands did however have a superior civilization compared to the North American Amerindian and some South American Amerindian groups. Isolation and volcanic landscape does not seem to be best suited to create a civilization.

The article is based on outdated genetic studies and to some extent romance and fantasy that seems to be out of touch of reality.

[Osweo]

The Berbers are genetic isolate. They have no relationship to Celts or Iberians.

In fact there is a sharp genetic divide between Berbers and Europeans. Iberians and Celts are no more related to them than Slavs or Germanics are.
Perhaps you're being a little too hasty there?

What about the haplogroups? You mention it yourself;


North Africans for example still contain high levels of E3b that is specific to their population, and the mtDNA seems mostly to be of native stock.

I was under the impression that there had been some slight leakage of E3b into western Europe from over the Straits of Gibraltar, dating from thousands of years ago. At the time, Hamitic languages might not even have been spoken in NW Africa, but lost languages smothered by later Afro-Asiatic expansion. Light blue here;
http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/__y-map.gif
Most in North Western Europe will have come up through the Balkans, so it's a shame i can't find a better map for the subclades than this;
E1b is divided into its clades here, and Western Europe seems to have a bit of the black coloured NWAfrica-specific M81;
http://64.40.115.138/file/lu/6/52235/NTIyMzV9K3szNTcxNDg=.jpg?download=1

Heh, see a wonderfully crude map from a Somali website;
http://img.youtube.com/vi/bu4OzKKlU9o/0.jpg
:rotfl:


Anyone got better info?

[StonyArabia]

Perhaps you're being a little too hasty there?

Not at all. I have seen the Berbers and their genetics make them to be the most different people from all the Caucasian groups. The way they cluster is also very unique that they are very far from Europe and form an isolated cluster that is pushing toward Egypt. They are quite distinct from Europeans and other Caucasian groups. The reason they were thought to be related to the Iberians and Celts was because of similarity of blood types.


What about the haplogroups? You mention it yourself;

The Haplogroups are very interesting because they seem not to have been subdued by Arabian male lineages. Rather they still constitute a large segment of that population, especially the Berber sub-clad. States that the Berbers were not altered by genetic admixture, but on the contrary they adopted Arab culture and religion. North Africans also don't seem to drift to Arabians, unlike Iraqis and some Levantines who do which indicates true Arabian admix.



I was under the impression that there had been some slight leakage of E3b into western Europe from over the Straits of Gibraltar, dating from thousands of years ago. At the time, Hamitic languages might not even have been spoken in NW Africa, but lost languages smothered by later Afro-Asiatic expansion. Light blue here;
http://pastmist.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/__y-map.gif

There was indeed some leakage of E3b into Europe. The lineages of course pre-date the formation of language or ethnic group. Most of the E3b in Europe that is found is of different sub-clad than that it's found in the Berber population. The gene flow seems to have went much in the opposite direction. It was mostly an Iberian female gene flow that went to North Africa. Sexual selection in some Berber groups seems to have favored those Iberian lineages to the native stock. Thus why you find some Southern European mtDNA that are in North Africa. This does not mean Southern Europeans have North African admixture. The Atlas Berbers are probably the most isolated Berbers and who did not have gene flow from Europe or the Near East, look Mongolodish but are genetically Caucasoid. It could be at one point that North Africa indeed did not have the Hamitic languages. It seems that the Afro-Asiatic languages originated around the Levant. Semitic traveled into Arabia and Hamitic moved into North Africa.


Most in North Western Europe will have come up through the Balkans, so it's a shame i can't find a better map for the subclades than this;
E1b is divided into its clades here, and Western Europe seems to have a bit of the black coloured NWAfrica-specific M81;
http://64.40.115.138/file/lu/6/52235/NTIyMzV9K3szNTcxNDg=.jpg?download=1

The Balkan sub-clad has it's origins in the Levant, there it moved into the Balkans becoming a dominant lineage. This of course occurred before the formation of Afro-Asiatic or even connecting this lineage to that particular group, because it entered Europe during the neolithic age. It became a dominant lineage in the Balkans. How entered North Western Europe probably through Thracian and Illyrians who were Romanized and settled during the Roman rule of those nations. The Berber sub-clad is rarely found in Europe. The Balkan sub-clad is found in some North Africans but that's probably recent Balkan gene flow from the Ottoman and even Greek settlements. The Berber sub-clad is very rare in Europe.


Heh, see a wonderfully crude map from a Somali website;
http://img.youtube.com/vi/bu4OzKKlU9o/0.jpg
:rotfl:

Although the map is not accurate it does illustrate where the two dominant E3b lineages are. The Berbers and Arab North Africans are over 80% in E3b-M81, with some other lineages. Egypt has some high levels of several E3b lineages depending on the location, but J1 seems to be also one of the most dominating lineages.


Anyone got better info?

I am not a geneticist by any means, but I have seen where Iberians and Berbers fall on several clusters. They are by no means genetically related. Iberians seem to drift toward other Europeans. Well Berbers seem to drift beside themselves with some connection to Egypt. This forms a genetic isolate. Of course like all Caucasoid groups they are related to Europeans but distinctly and distantly. Most of these findings are by scholarly genetic articles. Most state by genetics the Arabian genetic impact is weak and not a demographic shift but a linguistic and culture one, which seems to fit the historic landscape.

[Loki]

Erm, what E3b "leakage"? Some E3b groups formed in Europe 8,000 years ago.

[Osweo]

Erm, what E3b "leakage"? Some E3b groups formed in Europe 8,000 years ago.

Sure, but we're talking about the specifically NW African branch now. 'M81' not 'M78'.

Not your Trojans! :D

[aherne]

Like the Celtic Tocharians...

At this point I stopped reading this garbage. Guanches were similar to Riffians and of same Berber stock. Both groups had highest amount of pre-Berber ancestry (Afalou Cro-Magnid), which mostly consisted of swarthy cro-magnids with high frequency of red hair and hazel eyes. Still, the East-Mediterannean element was in CLEAR MAJORITY. Modern Canarians also frequently show a North African version of East Mediterannean (due to Guanche ancestry, since Spaniards never mixed with Maurs in their homeland). Whoever suggests they were Aryans is... well... not in his right mind:)

[aureus]

Off the coast of West Africa lie the Canary Islands - this region became home to a mysterious group in antiquity who became known as the Guanches.

While it is unknown for sure how they arrived on the islands, what is known is that they shared a number of cultural characteristics with the ancient Egyptians and that their building style appears to have been replicated in South and Central America.

Like the Celtic Tocharians, the finest evidence of what the original Guanche looked like, is in the fortuitous existence of original Guanche mummies, which are on public display in that island group's national museum.



.......blablabla.........
Guanche artifacts, such as cave murals, tombs, stone and mortar walls, broken pottery and other everyday items are abundant on the island. Similar artifacts have been found on the African continent itself - notably in Morocco, indicating that at some stage the Guanches crossed the sea to Africa.

There they started mixing with other racial types on the african continent itself. This process is very likely to be the cause of some flashes of blond hair and light colored eyes still to be found amongst the Berber population of north west Africa to this day.

The pyramids and other structures on the islands seem to have been constructed by an advanced people - certainly by the time of the spanish invasion, the Guanches had lost much of their civilized apparel, and spanish accounts have it that they were attacked by naked tribesmen, who sometimes inflicted serious military defeats upon the invading spaniards. It was only in 1496 that the spaniards finally defeated the last of the Guanches.

The arrival of the spaniards in the mid 14th Century saw the remaining Guanches absorbed into the new settler population. The blond, blue-eyed, tall stock has been preserved in part, and can still be seen today in many individuals on the island.


Culturally speaking, the Guanche civilization was completely absorbed by the imported continental European culture, so that the Canary Islands remains spanish territory to this day.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_guanches_1.htm#guanches

it's rubbish

[Don]

In canary Islands, I mean among the islanders, exists one of these modern Indigenismos, so common in southamerica and other non-european countries, that is a strong feeling of identity based mainly in the accusation to any european element as the causes of bad things going on, from the lost of a fantastic and fictional glory in the past, to the actual levels of corruption or violence.

It is a fact that even the Canarians are, in some way, following these movements quite useful for politicians, due to the profit that the victimism and satanization of a foreingner element has in the movilization of votes.

In fact, many Canarians call us (peninsulares, from castilians conquista) GODOS (gothics). Of course this is a pejorative and an insult to them. To call godo someone in the canarian isles is like calling you mother fucker, basically.

The interesting and ridiculous thing is that many of these who use this word and follow some kind of mythic indigenism, are pure castilian breeds from the conquest of the Islands 600 years ago.

About the phenotypes... the more guanche you are, the more moor you look.

[Lábaru]

Here the the most pures berbers, according to genetics.

http://www.laprovincia.es/sociedad-futuro/2009/10/23/gomera-posee-linaje-bereber-puro/265016.html


Basically says that some 2500 years ago the Berbers of the African coast migrated to the island of La Gomera (Canarian island), and they seem to have been fairly isolated.

La Gomera.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Gomera

http://www.hotelsearch.com/imagesv02/maps/8221.gif

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kbEQxWyGVhA/SYeN8upKpsI/AAAAAAAARgA/GAK6kAaVyJY/s400/La+Gomera.jpg

One thing, who say that the Guanches were blonde and blue eyes, the same as the original Berber, you have no fucking idea about reality, you live by myths.

[Ibericus]

The Berbers are not a genetic isolate. The Mozabites are a tribe of berbers from Algeria and they cluster with Moroccans and Egyptians, see these plots with europeans included :

http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5633/bgaa.png

[aureus]

One thing, who say that the Guanches were blonde and blue eyes, the same as the original Berber, you have no fucking idea about reality, you live by myths.

You are used to the myths.

[Lábaru]

You are used to the myths.

Go home, outside Europe, Moro.

[aureus]

Go home, outside Europe, Moro.

I will bring to you tachekchukt.

[StonyArabia]

About the phenotypes... the more guanche you are, the more moor you look.

That is actually true. Many Canary Islanders who lean on the more Guanche side are often exotic for Europe but can fit with no problem in North Africa. Miss Tenerife 2007 for example looks like the typical North African. This why many Canary Islanders can look very exotic to other Europeans.

http://i51.tinypic.com/28u1q3r.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/307rk41.jpg


The Berbers are not a genetic isolate. The Mozabites are a tribe of berbers from Algeria and they cluster with Moroccans and Egyptians, see these plots with europeans included :http://i54.tinypic.com/2mfjez8.png

That because Moroccans are of Berber stock. The Berbers have some connection to Egypt, but the for most part they form there own cluster.


One thing, who say that the Guanches were blonde and blue eyes, the same as the original Berber, you have no fucking idea about reality, you live by myths.

That is indeed a myth. The original Berbers were not blond and blue eyed on the contrary they were swarthy and with dark hair and eyes. They are darker than Southern Europeans slightly. The Guanches themselves have been noted to be dark as Amerinds by Colombus. Of course the difference the Guanches were Caucasians not Mongoloid. The myth started when the Nazis believed that the Aryan race to have originated in Atlantis and that the remains of that ancient civilization was the Canary Islands. It's nothing more than based on fantasy. Since the Guanches were not Indo-Europeans by culture or even blood. On the contrary their culture seemed similar to their Berber cousins in North Africa but on a much primitive level.

[Lábaru]

The myth started when the Nazis believed that the Aryan race to have originated in Atlantis and that the remains of that ancient civilization was the Canary Islands. It's nothing more than based on fantasy. Since the Guanches were not Indo-Europeans by culture or even blood. On the contrary their culture seemed similar to their Berber cousins in North Africa but on a much primitive level.

Exactly.

[aureus]

That is indeed a myth. The original Berbers were not blond and blue eyed on the contrary they were swarthy and with dark hair and eyes. They are darker than Southern Europeans slightly. The Guanches themselves have been noted to be dark as Amerinds by Colombus. Of course the difference the Guanches were Caucasians not Mongoloid. The myth started when the Nazis believed that the Aryan race to have originated in Atlantis and that the remains of that ancient civilization was the Canary Islands. It's nothing more than based on fantasy. Since the Guanches were not Indo-Europeans by culture or even blood. On the contrary their culture seemed similar to their Berber cousins in North Africa but on a much primitive level.

Original berber were and are even today white people of clear to darker complexion, blondism and clear eyes are not uncommon but not predominant, it is not a sign of outside influence, but goes back to ancient times.

[StonyArabia]

Exactly.

That indeed what is. Here is another Canary Islander and she looks to fit in North Africa as well.

http://i53.tinypic.com/21noa6r.jpg


Original berber were and are even today white people of clear to darker complexion, blondism and clear eyes are not uncommon but not predominant, it is not a sign of outside influence, but goes back to ancient times.

I believe that blondism is common to all Caucasoid, and it does not have to be a sign of outside influence that what I have stated. Most Berbers are Caucasian but they are slightly darker than Southern Euros the majority but some of them do have fair hair and light eyes. North Africa and the Canary Islands are not blond by any means. Syria has the highest rate of blondism outside of Europe. These are superficial features, when it comes to genetics. Genetics after all determine where the person clusters. Syrians also don't cluster with Europeans but with other Semitic peoples.

[Lábaru]

Original berber were and are even today white people of clear to darker complexion, blondism and clear eyes are not uncommon but not predominant, it is not a sign of outside influence, but goes back to ancient times.

In your "moro" dreams, the North African have a 4% of blondism and same % blue eyes, all this features from descendants of Europeans, Andalusí blood and Vandals Germanic or other older European contributions, pure Berbers have totally dark eyes and hair and faces of baboons.

[Agrippa]

Among the Guanches and old Berbers blondism and light traits were known and there were and are European-like variants among them, even though they are a minority.

Both extremes are wrong, because neither could the majority of todays North Africans pass as Europeans, nor do such European-like variants not exist there - and they are not all descendents of Europeans neither, because recombination processes can produce with the local elements European-like variants too.

[aherne]

http://i53.tinypic.com/21noa6r.jpg

I think every single European, including myself, looks pure Castilian compared to this woman, whom I would have guessed as some sort of castiza from Latin America. One thing I've noticed is that Canarians of Guanche phenotype are MUCH darker than Spaniards. Their hair is always BLACK, their pigmentation is dark olive / brown, their eyes are black. A lot look admixed with Negros....

[Erik]

But please did exisit a genetic band between the Germanic peoples and the Berbers?
As far the skull, fair hair and blue eyes there must be a relationship. Maybe the
Cro-Magnon Men?

[StonyArabia]

But please did exisit a genetic band between the Germanic peoples and the Berbers?
As far the skull, fair hair and blue eyes there must be a relationship. Maybe the
Cro-Magnon Men?

No such genetic bond exists at all. Berbers are quite far from Europeans. From all Caucasian groups they cluster on their own with some touching into Egypt. Nope those traits are found in all Caucasian groups to extent both European and non-European. Most Berbers are not blond but on the contrary they are swarthy with dark hair and eyes. Syria has more blonds than all other non-European countries and genetically the Syrian cluster with other Semitic peoples rather than Europeans.


Among the Guanches and old Berbers blondism and light traits were known and there were and are European-like variants among them, even though they are a minority.

That is what I am saying. The Guanches and Berbers did and still do have blondism among their population, and that the European variants do exist among them but indeed they are minority. They seem to have always been.


Both extremes are wrong, because neither could the majority of todays North Africans pass as Europeans, nor do such European-like variants not exist there - and they are not all descendents of Europeans neither, because recombination processes can produce with the local elements European-like variants too.

Indeed, because all Caucasoid groups do have some overlap. There are some still European-like variant in North Africa, however they are indeed not descendants of Europeans. However we know that North Africa had Vandal, Greek and Roman settlements which could have introduced the European variants. Also when the Iberians expelled the Morsicos a large number of them settled in mass in fact in North Africa. The Morsicos were mostly Arabized European locals. The Riffian and Kabyles are in fact usually darker than the Syrian and Lebanese. Syrians tend to be the most European like and have the highest rates of blondism among non-European population.

[aureus]

But please did exisit a genetic band between the Germanic peoples and the Berbers?
As far the skull, fair hair and blue eyes there must be a relationship. Maybe the
Cro-Magnon Men?

European cromagnoid and his cousin african afalu/mechtoïd are similar robust sapiens, african more ancient and archaïc.

[aureus]

Indeed, because all Caucasoid groups do have some overlap. There are some still European-like variant in North Africa, however they are indeed not descendants of Europeans. However we know that North Africa had Vandal, Greek and Roman settlements which could have introduced the European variants. Also when the Iberians expelled the Morsicos a large number of them settled in mass in fact in North Africa. The Morsicos were mostly Arabized European locals. The Riffian and Kabyles are in fact usually darker than the Syrian and Lebanese. Syrians tend to be the most European like and have the highest rates of blondism among non-European population.

Levant people and particularly syro lebanese which you quote can be light-blond of skin they have Semitic facies, armenid, as well as blond Berber which you often say about European ancestors are only more clear Berber, with the same characteristics besides. In the region of my father Aurès red-haired persons are not rare, much more frequent than in France for example, but they do not distinguish themselves from the others. These characteristics date the prehistory, the contributions of posterior fair-haired men (Vandals is often evoked) were small, much less than German in western Europe, and fact which we always forget, clear Berber meet most in the mountainous zones away from the successive invasions, where the fund of the population remained Berber for a long time.

[Lábaru]

. In the region of my father Aurès red-haired persons are not rare, much more frequent than in France for example,.

xD xD xD xD xD lol lol lol

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Localisation_aures.svg/800px-Localisation_aures.svg.png

[aureus]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Localisation_aures.svg/800px-Localisation_aures.svg.png

┌∩┐(◣_◢)┌∩┐

[Tropico]

The Canary Islands are very interesting. Thats where many Puerto Ricans get their Spaniard blood, and through the Spaniard the Guanche blood.

[Anthropologique]

The Canary Islands are very interesting. Thats where many Puerto Ricans get their Spaniard blood, and through the Spaniard the Guanche blood. Guanches are not autochthonous Spaniards. Canarians or Spainish mixed with Gaunche are bi-racial. The Canaries are treated differently genetically than mainland Spain.

[Tropico]

Guanches are not autochthonous Spaniards. Canarians or Spainish mixed with Gaunche are bi-racial. The Canaries are treated differently genetically than mainland Spain.

Guanches are North African right? They were either the blue eyes cromagnids and/or the North African descendants or both. Either way technically North Africans aren't a separate race. So Canarians aren't biracial. Or?

[Sikeliot]

Guanches would have been similar to today's Riffian Berbers.

[Tropico]

Guanches would have been similar to today's Riffian Berbers.

And what about the descriptions of the people who were tall, blonde and light eyed? I thought that they mixed with the North Africans to form the Guanche people and then those Guanche's mixed with the Spaniards to form the Canary people.

[Sikeliot]

Some North Africans are blonde and blue eyed too.

[Tropico]

Some North Africans are blonde and blue eyed too.

Cool. So any MENA that would show up in the Canary Island diaspora found in Latin America is due to the Guanche bloodline?

[Slycooper]

A canarian spaniard is very diff than a Mainland spaniard.

[Tropico]

A canarian spaniard is very diff than a Mainland spaniard.

lol Well thats where a good chunk of my Spaniard blood comes from, so if they are not "true" Spaniards, what are they?

[Comte Arnau]

These comments are so much fun.

[Slycooper]

lol Well thats where a good chunk of my Spaniard blood comes from, so if they are not "true" Spaniards, what are they?

"Spanish blood" can mean many things. As in spain is a country with many different ethnic people. The Galicians, The Basques, The catalonians etc. It is a country based off of a unification like Italy. It means that your Spanish blood from the canaries may be very diluted. The Portuguese actually discovered the canaries. The canaries had a native population on it already.

[Tropico]

"Spanish blood" can mean many things. As in spain is a country with many different ethnic people. The Galicians, The Basques, The catalonians etc. It is a country based off of a unification like Italy. It means that your Spanish blood from the canaries may be very diluted. The Portuguese actually discovered the canaries. The canaries had a native population on it already.

So whats the difference between a Galician, a Canarian, a Basque? Genetically I mean? I know that I have around 58-60% European blood and 10-14% MENA. Does that mean theres a good chance my Spaniard ancestors were just actually Canary Islanders who were mixed themselves?

[Slycooper]

So whats the difference between a Galician, a Canarian, a Basque? Genetically I mean? I know that I have around 58-60% European blood and 10-14% MENA. Does that mean theres a good chance my Spaniard ancestors were just actually Canary Islanders who were mixed themselves?

Galicians are an ethnic group native to the northwest corner of spain. They border Portugal to the south. The Basques are one of the oldest ethnic groups in europe. Some Basques don't even consider themselves as a spaniard. Just a Basque.As do other people from Spain. A canarian is someone from the canarian islands. Spain became a country when different kingdoms and ethnic groups unified into one entity. Centuries ago. Now people from Spain went to the canary islands and took them. Thus making them a part of Spain. "Spanish" is just a nationality.
If you have ancestry from the canary islands then that is a possiblity.

[Tropico]

Galicians are an ethnic group native to the northwest corner of spain. They border Portugal to the south. The Basques are one of the oldest ethnic groups in europe. Some Basques don't even consider themselves as a spaniard. Just a Basque.As do other people from Spain. A canarian is someone from the canarian islands. Spain became a country when different kingdoms and ethnic groups unified into one entity. Centuries ago. Now people from Spain went to the canary islands and took them. Thus making them a part of Spain. "Spanish" is just a nationality.
If you have ancestry from the canary islands then that is a possiblity.

I do have known Canarian ancestry. But damn. I didnt know Spain had its own ethnic issues. Whats the issue with the Catalans?

[Slycooper]

I do have known Canarian ancestry. But damn. I didnt know Spain had its own ethnic issues. Whats the issue with the Catalans?

I'm not to sure about that. But yes the Spain is a mixture of different people. It's a nationality. It's neighbor Portugal is different. Portuguese are an ethnic group. Portugal could become part of Spain tomorrow. But the people that live in the Portuguese territory will still be Portuguese. See what I mean?

[Anthropologique]

lol Well thats where a good chunk of my Spaniard blood comes from, so if they are not "true" Spaniards, what are they?

No, a Canarian, unless he originates directly from the Spanish mainland genome, is not a NATIVE Spaniard genetically. He is mixed race.

[Tropico]

No, a Canarian, unless he originates directly from the Spanish mainland genome, is not a NATIVE Spaniard genetically. He is mixed race.

How are Canarians mixed race? Arent Berbers considered part of the Caucasian race?

[Anthropologique]

How are Canarians mixed race? Arent Berbers considered part of the Caucasian race?

They are BERBER CAUCASIAN, not indigenous European, therefore, not "white." A good number of Canarians are a blend of NW African and Spanish / Spaniard.

[Comte Arnau]

Whats the issue with the Catalans?

What's the issue? We are an ethnic group in the north-east of Iberia, with our own language, customs and history, and a majority of us wants to be the next state in Europe. That's "the issue".

[Tropico]

They are BERBER CAUCASIAN, not indigenous European, therefore, not "white." A good number of Canarians are a blend of NW African and Spanish / Spaniard.

Are Canarian Spaniards more European or Berber? Or does it go by island?

[Slycooper]

Do you have any Spanish ancestry from Mainland Spain?

[Tropico]

What's the issue? We are an ethnic group in the north-east of Iberia, with our own language, customs and history, and a majority of us wants to be the next state in Europe. That's "the issue".

Oh. And im guessing Spain doesnt want you guys to have your independence?

[Tropico]

Do you have any Spanish ancestry from Mainland Spain?

Dont know. I know my mothers side has Canarian ancestry. My fathers, I know the names of my Spaniard ancestors, but I dont know where exactly they are from.

[Slycooper]

You don't know which Island?

[Tropico]

You don't know which Island?

No. I know that his wife is supposedly a Taina woman. And his son put down that his father was from Spain in the census. Family stories back it up by stating he was from the Islands but not from where exactly.

[Slycooper]

Have you read about the history of the islands? If you haven't you should. You would know better the history of the population. Like you my Portuguese comes from an Island as well.

[Tropico]

Have you read about the history of the islands? If you haven't you should. You would know better the history of the population. Like you my Portuguese comes from an Island as well.

Really? Nice. Maybe I have a little Portuguese in me. ;P haha Doubtful but maybe like 2%. hah

[Slycooper]

Really? Nice. Maybe I have a little Portuguese in me. ;P haha Doubtful but maybe like 2%. hah

lol who knows?

[Sikeliot]

One DNA run showed that Canarians are not that much more North African than are some Portuguese. Maybe it just depends on which island they surveyed.. some of the islands have less Spanish input than others.

[Tropico]

One DNA run showed that Canarians are not that much more North African than are some Portuguese. Maybe it just depends on which island they surveyed.. some of the islands have less Spanish input than others.

Well out of all of the islands, on relative finder the only matches I have are from Santa Cruz de Tenerife and Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. Anything special about those two?

[Albion]

Wasn't it only Teneriffe and Gran Canaria that were inhabited by Guanches? I thought the others were empty when discovered? :confused:
In any case, I doubt the other islands were populated purely from mainland Spain.

[Sikeliot]

Tenerife I know had Guanches because some of the people I saw in pictures from there once looked almost half North African.

[Michelangelo Italian]

There is no such thing as a person with only European ancestry.

Every person has to some degree African ancestry. It’s evolution. The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans have been found in Ethiopia. We all descend from African hominids and we all share genes with chimps. Human beings share more than 90% of their DNA with African chimps. Genetics is very clear.
With that being said, Canarian people from Tenerife or Gran Canaria are, on average, less than 15% berber.

According to the social scientist Stoddard, pure berbers, due to its great similarities with other mediterranean people WERE white. However, Stoddard considers the remaining general population of North Africa to be either essentially Arab or mixed with Arabs.

Canary islanders are European and white Spaniards.

Canarian people can exhibe some similarities with Puerto Ricans because of the Canarian migration to Puerto Rico, but they are definitely NOT the same. The general population from Puerto Rico is NOT white but tri-racial. The actual genetic makeup of average Puerto Ricans is roughly around 64% white (overwhelming Spanish influence), 25% black sub-Saharan African (black slaves influence) and 11% AmerIndian.

[Gaston]

There is no such thing as a person with only European ancestry.


It's no the point of this thread. What is sure is that European are a recent mixture (post-neolithic) of Western Hunter Gatherers, Near Eastern farmers and Ancient North Eurasians. Only Sardinians lack the latter, so in a way they could be seen as a different race (they also have very minor African influence).


With that being said, Canarian people from Tenerife or Gran Canaria are, on average, less than 15% berber.


It's more like 20%, with big variations.




According to the social scientist Stoddard, pure berbers, due to its great similarities with other mediterranean people WERE white. However, Stoddard considers the remaining general population of Morocco, Algeria or Tunisia to be either essentially Arab or mixed with Arabs.

According to fairy tales maybe.

[Michelangelo Italian]

According to this study, the Northwest African influence in Canary Islanders is 17% on average while it is 5% in Iberians. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3068190/

"The majority of its inhabitants are Berbers, an ancient stock generally considered white" (Stoddard, p. 94)

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37408/37408-h/37408-h.htm


On the Eurasian Origins of Berbers
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/eurasian-origins-of-the-berbers/

[FilhoV]

https://youtu.be/vZC8JmJoJs0