tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post644724623021787915..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: More on Lebanese Phoenicians or mixing Science and PoliticsDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-33451346168491476462010-01-10T05:34:32.401+02:002010-01-10T05:34:32.401+02:00to J2hapydna:
Maybe the best example against your...to J2hapydna:<br /><br />Maybe the best example against your argument is that the jews in the middle east despite sharing a similar language and genetics never converted unlike Egyptians and Iranians. I hope this reaches somebody. It was a very stimulating debate and your arguments J2hapydna are very interesting but too shaded by the history of the jews.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17615247884576166365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-86914018761383178522009-03-08T16:03:00.000+02:002009-03-08T16:03:00.000+02:00my 2 cents... haplogroup j2 is basically levantine...my 2 cents... haplogroup j2 is basically levantine/anatolian in origin and haplogroup j1 is arabian and yemeni! arabians/yemenis and levantine/anatolians are both middle easterns the differnce is between the j haplogroups in them! so the j haplogroups is middle eastern obviously! levantine/anatolian j2 spread to southern europe with the neolithic farmers who probably looked like ancient lebanese or syrian peoples possibly they looked like mesopotamians who knows! and j1 did only to the extreme south parts of europe with the arabian saracens and moors theres no mystery there! imo the e3b haplogroups are more of a mystery more complicated to study because they are found in northwest africa.. east africa.. and the balkans at their highest frequencies! 3 very different locationssardiniankidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17985488612748758635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-63725204580866415602009-01-22T01:23:00.000+02:002009-01-22T01:23:00.000+02:00J2: Why did the Jews collaborate with the Persians...<I>J2: Why did the Jews collaborate with the Persians against the Byzantines, in the first place?<BR/><BR/>Dienekes: Opportunism, the chance to resettle in Jerusalem. The same motive which led them in more recent times to collaborate with the British Empire to resettle Palestine and found their modern state. </I><BR/><BR/>Do you see nothing unfair about how the Jews were treated in Europe that would make it right for them to want a modern state of their own? Do you think, it was just opportunism that led to the creation of the state of Israel? In that case, I can understand why you would also think the local population of the middle east/ North Africa was being treated fairly by the Byzantines. You dont have to explain any further. <BR/><BR/>Now, when are you going to post that list of greatest mathematical achievements of the early Roman/ Byzantine Empire from the period between 200 CE to 1200 CE?J2hapydnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184566477246858915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-22719926246231421742009-01-22T00:25:00.000+02:002009-01-22T00:25:00.000+02:00I don't know about Brazilians, but in Venezuela th...I don't know about Brazilians, but in Venezuela there is around 85-90% European male haplogroups <BR/><BR/>This is an example:<BR/><BR/>http://www.xalab.fcnym.unlp.edu.ar/index.php-action=posGENEDEPO.htm#4<BR/>But there are other regions with more Spanish component within Venezuela. <BR/>Interestingly, around 75% of mtDNA is native American and the rest is half half European or African.<BR/>This reafirms what we know from history: rape and conquest by a bunch of Spaniards.Keplerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11125538872924743270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-55758844110167828372009-01-21T22:45:00.000+02:002009-01-21T22:45:00.000+02:00It seems that you are quite emotionally invested i...<I>It seems that you are quite emotionally invested in your anti-Byzantine feelings. <BR/><BR/>Arabs managed to change peoples' language because Islam is inseparable from Arabic (the Koran was even forbidden to translated until quite recently, and all Islamic worship is in Arabic). Thus, the vehicle of religion became also the vehicle of linguistic Arabization. This is quite unlike the spread of Christianity, which, from earlier times aimed to translate the scriptures or at least to create a religious literature in native languages. </I><BR/><BR/>Dienkes, like I told Terry, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan are all over 97% Muslim, but do not speak Arabic, as their native language. On the other hand 75% Christian Lebanon does speak Arabic. So, it would seem, spread of Islam does not guarantee the spread of the Arabic language. Arabic is in essence, has difficulty expanding into to regions with populations with low numbers of J1/ J/ E and high numbers of R, speaking non Afroasiatic languages. <BR/><BR/>As far as being invested in anti Byzantine feelings is concerned, all I can say is, you should see my vesting into my anti Islamic world feelings, someday. <BR/><BR/>After a few initial centuries of enlightenment, during the Goldgen Age of Islam, the Islamic world adopted the same cruel things it began it's life opposing- in the stagnant and degenerative Christian Byantine world. The conquerors soon became the conquered, The Islamic world turned into a terrible inward looking monster after a few centuries... And has never looked back. I hold the development and implementation of ideas contained in Islamic Shariah (Law)/ Hadith system developed about 200/ 250 years after the birth of Islam, responsible for this change. Would you like to share with me any signifcant Islamic world achievements in mathematics and science after say 1400 CE?J2hapydnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184566477246858915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34307310174814997922009-01-21T20:21:00.000+02:002009-01-21T20:21:00.000+02:00Why did the Jews collaborate with the Persians aga...<I>Why did the Jews collaborate with the Persians against the Byzantines, in the first place?</I><BR/><BR/>Opportunism, the chance to resettle in Jerusalem. The same motive which led them in more recent times to collaborate with the British Empire to resettle Palestine and found their modern state.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-10744881162300855352009-01-21T20:17:00.000+02:002009-01-21T20:17:00.000+02:00It is no wonder, why the Byznatine Empire failed t...<I>It is no wonder, why the Byznatine Empire failed to convince anyone to adopt it's language and culture in the middle east. Why people would have supported the Arabs against such a pathological rule.</I><BR/><BR/>It seems that you are quite emotionally invested in your anti-Byzantine feelings. <BR/><BR/>Arabs managed to change peoples' language because Islam is inseparable from Arabic (the Koran was even forbidden to translated until quite recently, and all Islamic worship is in Arabic). Thus, the vehicle of religion became also the vehicle of linguistic Arabization. This is quite unlike the spread of Christianity, which, from earlier times aimed to translate the scriptures or at least to create a religious literature in native languages.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-56510681013958662762009-01-21T20:16:00.000+02:002009-01-21T20:16:00.000+02:00Maju, I think Ricardo means YDNA ancestry. We know...Maju, I think Ricardo means YDNA ancestry. We know perfectly that the mtDNA is about one third Native American, one third African and only one third European. Recent papers have demonstrated that Brazilians are European (YDNA) probably more than 90%.<BR/>My provocation, against also Capelli, is that also North Africans could be mostly Romans: as they have a 10% of European R1b, they could have also E and J from South Europe. I don't understand how North Africans could have lost their YDNA in Central Tuscany. The recent paper on mtDNA in Tunisia, with some European haplogroups, have an half of L from South Saharan Africa. They too could be as modern Brasilians. The variance of J and E in North West Africa is low, lower than in South Europe, and they demonstrate genetic drift and founder effect. I think that in genetic studies there are too many sponsors and too many politics.Gioiellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00999270356447668208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85530797645579860562009-01-21T19:57:00.000+02:002009-01-21T19:57:00.000+02:00J2: Furthermore, it is my understanding that the R...<I> J2: Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Romans and Greeks under Heraclius were busy looting Persian temples and palaces, persecuting Jews, invented ways of going back on their word, passing laws to kill Jews and forbidding them from entering Jerusalem on the eve of the Islamic conquests. I hope this is not the efflorescence of civilization you were talking about.<BR/><BR/>Dienekes: No, the Persians and their supporters were busy slaughtering Christians at the time of Heraclius, when they sacked Jerusalem. It's been downhill for the entire Levant ever since it was lost to the Roman Empire, culminating to its present sorry state. The early achievements in Islamic lands had nothing to do with Islam itself, but rather with the sudden possession of wealth, and access to Greek learning. But, sure enough, the stultifying effects of the religion won in the end.</I><BR/><BR/>Why did the Jews collaborate with the Persians against the Byzantines, in the first place? Have you ever wondered if it may have something to do with how the Jews were being treated in that glorious society that you describe as a place where:<BR/><BR/>"they had never known a greater prosperity and efflorescence of civilization than under the Greeks and Romans"?<BR/><BR/>Secondly, why make an agreement with these Jews (if they were so trecherous to begin with) for help with getting rid of the Persians, then to go back on that agreement? Only to deny Jews access to Jerusalem. Pass orders to kill them. There is ample proof to see who was the real trecherous opportunist in this sordid saga. Heraclius saw everything as a zero sum game. It is no wonder, why the Byznatine Empire failed to convince anyone to adopt it's language and culture in the middle east. Why people would have supported the Arabs against such a pathological rule.<BR/><BR/>Finally, where is that list of the greatest mathematical achievements of the Byzantine Empire from 200 CE to 1200 CE? So we may all known that great prosperity and efflorescence of civilization under the Christian Greeks and Eastern Roman (Byzantine Empire).J2hapydnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184566477246858915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-7443392520920439542009-01-21T19:43:00.000+02:002009-01-21T19:43:00.000+02:00When one speaks about History, he should know it. ...<I>When one speaks about History, he should know it. Hadrian was born in Hispania, but from “Italian” family, like Traian. The citizenship to the whole Empire was due to Diocletian in 212 AD, 74 years after Hadrian’s death.</I><BR/><BR/>Maybe I'm wrong about the exact date and signatary emperor of "universal citizenship" in the Roman Empire. Actually, checking Wikipedia, it seems it was Caracalla the ruling emperor in the time of that edict. <BR/><BR/>Caracalla was himself a "creole" Roman, of North African and West Asian ancestry. <BR/><BR/>But Hadrian also had North African ancestry by maternal side, or so I have read. In any case he was a provincial by birth, and hence the term "creole" can also apply. <BR/><BR/>...<BR/><BR/><I>No, the Persians and their supporters were busy slaughtering Christians at the time of Heraclius, when they sacked Jerusalem.</I><BR/><BR/>AFAIK, occasional epysodes apart, Persian Zoroastrians were normally much more tolerant of different religions than Roman Christians. That was a Persian tradition only broken with the advent of Islam.<BR/><BR/>... <BR/><BR/><I>Ricardo Costa de Oliveira says that 40% of Brasilians are of Portuguese ancestry (a recent paper says 55%): i.e from 80,000,000 to 110,000,000. The same did Romans. </I><BR/><BR/>No. Romans could not and did not do the same. And I challenge you to prove it.<BR/><BR/>The huge population of Brazil is due to local explosion (plus a good deal of immigration from varied origins) in a relatively "empty" context. <BR/><BR/>Anyhow that 40% of Brazilians are of some Portuguese ancestry is not the same as Brazilians being 40% Portuguese by ancestry. The latter figure may be more like, I guess, 10% (due to intense admixture, with other Europeans, with Africans and with Native Americans). <BR/><BR/>It's possible that you could argue that 80% of Spaniards are of Roman, Phoenician, Berber or Frankish ancestry. But that's not the same as Spaniards being 80% of alien ancestry. In fact all genetic studies appear to show that they are largely native. <BR/><BR/>If one of my many thousands ancestors was, say, from Mongolia, is not the same as most of my ancestry being Mongol. It's very possible that many Europeans have a Hunnic ancestor somewhere lost in tehir genealogical trees but that's not the same as they being overwhelmingly Hunnic by ancestry, not at all.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-16770026707989637872009-01-21T19:14:00.000+02:002009-01-21T19:14:00.000+02:00Pardon, not Diocletian but Caracalla.Pardon, not Diocletian but Caracalla.Gioiellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00999270356447668208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-83246502936376192522009-01-21T19:12:00.000+02:002009-01-21T19:12:00.000+02:00"Finally with the second "creole" emperor Hadrian,..."Finally with the second "creole" emperor Hadrian, citizenship was granted to all subjects of the Empire".<BR/><BR/>When one speaks about History, he should know it. Hadrian was born in Hispania, but from “Italian” family, like Traian. The citizenship to the whole Empire was due to Diocletian in 212 AD, 74 years after Hadrian’s death.<BR/><BR/>"much like the Dutch or the Portuguese or the Venetians could not but very sparsely colonize their overseas domains"<BR/><BR/>Ricardo Costa de Oliveira says that 40% of Brasilians are of Portuguese ancestry (a recent paper says 55%): i.e from 80,000,000 to 110,000,000. The same did Romans.Gioiellohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00999270356447668208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-47753773763524126462009-01-21T14:17:00.000+02:002009-01-21T14:17:00.000+02:00The fact is that local Jewish and Christian popula...<I>The fact is that local Jewish and Christian population was fed up of the Greek brutality, forcing them to accept Chalcedonian Christianity.</I><BR/><BR/>Utter nonsense. The "population" had no idea what Chalcedonian Christianity was, and had little interest in the inner workings of the Holy Trinity. <BR/><BR/>Conversion to Islam had nothing to do with theology or "Greek brutality". It had everything to do with opportunism, as conversion to Islam meant elevation to a superior status in the new regime.<BR/><BR/>Given the socio-economic advantages of a Muslim in an Islamic society, it was profitable to become one. And, that is the main reason why people became Muslim, although more direct forms of "persuasion" were also used sometimes, e.g., in the case of notables, to ensure their loyalty.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-18545666464003395822009-01-21T13:46:00.000+02:002009-01-21T13:46:00.000+02:00Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Roman...<I>Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Romans and Greeks under Heraclius were busy looting Persian temples and palaces, persecuting Jews, invented ways of going back on their word, passing laws to kill Jews and forbidding them from entering Jerusalem on the eve of the Islamic conquests. I hope this is not the efflorescence of civilization you were talking about.</I><BR/><BR/>No, the Persians and their supporters were busy slaughtering Christians at the time of Heraclius, when they sacked Jerusalem. It's been downhill for the entire Levant ever since it was lost to the Roman Empire, culminating to its present sorry state. The early achievements in Islamic lands had nothing to do with Islam itself, but rather with the sudden possession of wealth, and access to Greek learning. But, sure enough, the stultifying effects of the religion won in the end.<BR/><BR/><I>Okay, then why haven't you given me an example of a minority (that speaks an unrelated language/ composed of different haplogroups than the majority) but has compelled a large majority to speak it's language?</I><BR/><BR/>You have been given several examples by others in this thread.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32186233362724803382009-01-21T06:52:00.000+02:002009-01-21T06:52:00.000+02:00North Africa has never known a greater prosperity ...<I> North Africa has never known a greater prosperity and efflorescence of civilization than under the Greeks and Romans.</I><BR/><BR/>Before Islam began to spread in the middle of the 6th century, the Greeks/ Romans ruled the region for the last four hundred years under Christianity. Could you please give me a list of scientific and mathematical achievements of the Greeks and Roman civilization during this period? How about the six hundred years after Islam was born? This way we can gauge how truly civilized creative and civilized they were during that 1000 year period.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, it is my understanding that the Romans and Greeks under Heraclius were busy looting Persian temples and palaces, persecuting Jews, invented ways of going back on their word, passing laws to kill Jews and forbidding them from entering Jerusalem on the eve of the Islamic conquests. I hope this is not the efflorescence of civilization you were talking about.<BR/><BR/>--------------------------<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>It wouldn't make one iota of difference to an Egyptian that his language shared a common origin with Arabic many thousands of years in the past.</I><BR/><BR/>So, you dont see these factors (family of languages/ similarity of Y DNA Haplogroups) as indicators of cultural distance/ proximity. Okay, then why haven't you given me an example of a minority (that speaks an unrelated language/ composed of different haplogroups than the majority) but has compelled a large majority to speak it's language? I have given you an example of Southen Arabs who as 10% of the Lebanese population, compelled them to change and speak Arabic. However, the Arabs also spoke a related language and were composed of the same haplogroups as the Lebanese majority.J2hapydnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184566477246858915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-4073601379506905342009-01-21T04:13:00.000+02:002009-01-21T04:13:00.000+02:00You have good points Dienekes but:1. It's true tha...You have good points Dienekes but:<BR/><BR/>1. It's true that many West Asian and NE African populations where Christianity was old and had traditions that conflicted with Greco-Roman trinitarianism were to some extent suffering the attempts of homogeneization by Constantinople. Some of these groups, notably the Ghassanids, actively switched sides towards Muslims. Most did not but surely found the new Muslim domain, once estabilished, not as oppresive as to feel nostalgia for the old Byzantine order. Some may have found it even "liberating" to some extent. <BR/><BR/>This does not apply to most Berbers anyhow, who were independent, albeit fragmented. They were largely Arian anyhow, and hence monophysitic, and therefore could feel some sympathy for Islamic monophysism too. In any case Berbers actively resisted Muslim expansion in most cases, as did Egyptians and to some extent Syrians (including Lebanese, Palestinians, etc.)<BR/><BR/>2. Languages were certainly as different as German and Russian, or maybe even as Bengali and Spanish, true. But it's not impossible that some shared elements existed anyhow. I'm thinking for instance in that circumcission is pretty common among many African pastoralists, mostly not Muslim. I wonder is traits such as the preference of sheep, goat or cow meat over pig's may also reflect some sort of cultural background, not necesarily Afroasiatic but specifically from the hot arid lands that border the deserts, where pigs are certainly out of place. Monophysism was also something that was shared by most Afroasiatic Crhistians, as well as all Jews and Muslims, while most Indo-European Christians were instead Trinitarian (i.e. bodering polytheism for the others).<BR/><BR/>3. Islam spread by the sword, true. And religiously-justified blackmail (convert, submit or fight) was totally part of their way of life. This doesn't contradict the fact that initially Islamic domain was less interested in conversion than in mere expansion and that conversion happened then very limitedly and mostly by conviction or opportunism (tax exemption for instance). Only later would Islam become more zealot and intolerant, specially as Muslims began to be taxed in a rather blasphemous reform. The extent of this intolerance varied a great deal depending on the actual history of the area.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-45970050116513769782009-01-21T03:48:00.000+02:002009-01-21T03:48:00.000+02:00The notion that North Africans were converted to I...The notion that North Africans were converted to Islam to rid themselves of their "cruel Greek and Roman masters" is BS. North Africa has never known a greater prosperity and efflorescence of civilization than under the Greeks and Romans.<BR/><BR/>The notion that North Africans were receptive of Arabs because they were Afroasiatic speakers is also BS. "Afroasiatic" is a modern category to denote languages that were mutually unintelligible. It wouldn't make one iota of difference to an Egyptian that his language shared a common origin with Arabic many thousands of years in the past.<BR/><BR/>Finally, it is BS that Islam spread by convincing the North Africans. It spread first by the sword, and secondarily by instituting a state of apartheid in which dhimmis were second-class citizens. This state of social-cultural-economic discrimination resulted in a steady stream of conversions, with the results that we see today almost everywhere in the Islamic world.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37691494764703326872009-01-21T03:13:00.000+02:002009-01-21T03:13:00.000+02:00... I also understand that genetics and culture ar...<I>... I also understand that genetics and culture are not the same thing (even if sometimes are related) so I have to disagree with your emphasis on genetics. </I><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that North Africa is not an example of a small haplogroup J minority compelling a large E African majority to speak an unrelated language. In addition to Arabs and North Africans speaking "related" Afroasiatic languges, this is also a region where the number of middle eastern J ancestry are nearly identical to those who belong to African E ancestry in many areas. So, no surprise that after 1,400 years, Arabic has been unable to replace local languages. However, we can also see why Arabic is and will continue to be so attractive to many in this population. <BR/><BR/>I have to agree with you that it is sad to see Arabs trying to Arabize non Arabs in North Africa. However, my feeling is that this is a lost cause. <BR/><BR/>Take a look at the numbers of middle eastern haplogroup J in North Africa and Egypt compared to African haplogroup E:<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.flickr.com/photos/archaeogenetics/1547718128/<BR/><BR/>---------------<BR/><BR/>As far as Turkey is concerned it is hard to know the genetic identity of the invading Turks, to determine what portion of the population descends from the Turkish invaders.J2hapydnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184566477246858915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29088264597618123812009-01-20T22:43:00.000+02:002009-01-20T22:43:00.000+02:00First, I would point out that Southern Arabia's in...<I>First, I would point out that Southern Arabia's inhospitable climate, with few resources, could probably support only a small human population compared to the lands we are talking about. (...) Therefore, it is hard for me to believe they were a majority anywhere.</I><BR/><BR/>Right. <BR/><BR/><I>I suspect, Islam was initially presented (as it was to Lebanese and most Christian/ Jewish populations) as a religion that accepted the Jewish and Christian scriptures to promote harmony between the two traditions. Muhammad was probably presented as just another prophet in a string of many. The religion was probably viewed by the converting Christians as a fulfilment of some biblical prophesies, but most importantly as a way to get rid of their cruel Roman masters, with whom most Egyptians did not share an Indo European language (Latin and Greek associated with haplogroup R).</I><BR/><BR/>Islamic rule originally did not emphasize conversion at all. As by the original sharia rules, Muslims would pay no taxes, the rulers were interested in keeping a large dhimmi population who paid the bill. Also in Mohammed's and successors' discourse, conversion should be a most important personal decission done by conviction. And, of course, Judaism and Christianity were considered akin and protected religions. <BR/><BR/>This changed somewhat later on. But you are right that initially at least Islamic rule was very very tolerant in particular to Christian and Judaistic believers (another issue would be Zoroastrianism, for instance). <BR/><BR/>Now, while I was the first one pointing out the possible cultural affinity of the Islamic code of conduct with an Afroasiatic cultural background, somewhat distinct from the Indoeuropean one, I also understand that genetics and culture are not the same thing (even if sometimes are related) so I have to disagree with your emphasis on genetics.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-59165710965124373672009-01-20T22:20:00.000+02:002009-01-20T22:20:00.000+02:00I will focus in just one case, Ebizur, for the sak...I will focus in just one case, Ebizur, for the sake of clarity: Rome. We have enough historical and archaeological data of the Roman Empire, it's not like I am making up anything with my imagination. <BR/><BR/>We know that the peoples of SW Europe were only slightly colonized by Italians (and maybe other "Romans") and we know the modern genetics of Italy and other possible origins of colonists like North Africa (which surely played bigger role in Phoenician times but anyhow). We know also that Italy has not been conquered by people of other origins than Western/Central Europeans (with a brief Byzantine interlude) since then and we know that Italy's genetics, specially those of central and southern Italy, are somewhat different from those of Romance SW Europe (Iberia, France, romance Belgium and Switzerland). <BR/><BR/>I don't know you but there's absolutely no data, neither historical, nor archaeological nor genetic, that suggests that SW Europe was strongly colonized by Romans. The opposite is true in fact. But SW Europe was strongly aculturized by Romans and post-Roman kingdoms (and Catholic Church). Even Basque has a huge ammount of Latin loanwords (not modified by Romance creolization, just slightly Basquized), marking the importance of Latin in the past here too (instead there are just zero Celtic loanwords, for example). <BR/><BR/>We know from history that the natives, often very advanced and civilized themselves (Iberians for example) were gradually but rather rapidly assimilated. From the conquest of Gaul by Caesar to the concession of universal citizenship by Hadrian, just a few generations had passed. In any case, selective concession of citizenship was widely used before for all kind of allies as a tool of cultural and political romanization. Hadrian's "constitution" was just the final step in a process that had lasted several centuries. <BR/><BR/>Was there some Roman/Latin emigration in all the process? Surely but a tiny country as Latium (much smaller than modern Lazio) could not ever provide enough people to populate a empire that was hundreds of times its size (much like the Dutch or the Portuguese or the Venetians could not but very sparsely colonize their overseas domains) and often as developed as the metropolis or just slightly less so. <BR/><BR/>For that reason, Romans selectively integrated and assimilated their allies and conquered peoples. Selective grant of citizenship was used widely as political and cultural tool. Additionally, Romans invented Italy for the first time ever and gave all Italians (first south of the Rubico, later also to Cisalpine Gaul) a citizen-like status. With Augustus this was extended largely to those provinces considered more advanced and alike like Baetica or Asia. Finally with the second "creole" emperor Hadrian, citizenship was granted to all subjects of the Empire. <BR/><BR/>The process of assimilation nevertheless did not stop there and probably even continued in post-Roman times under the several kingdoms of Germanic dynasties (but not language, religion nor culture). It is very likely that when Western Rome collapsed many areas, especially in the Atlantic facade, still kept remnants of the pre-Roman languages, be them Celtic or Basque or whatever. The pervivence of Basque, as well as to some extent that of Welsh/Briton, is living witness to that. <BR/><BR/>In any case WE KNOW (as far as human knowledge can reach in such historical matters) that Rome colonized only so much and that native peoples were assimilated in a gradual process in their entirety.<BR/><BR/>And I think we can say the same for the other cases mentioned. Certainly the Turkish, Arabic and English cases offer relatively low level of doubt. There can be some argument about the exact percentages of immigrants, be them 1%, 5% or 15%, but there is no reasonable doubt on the vast majority of modern Anatolian Turks', North African Arabs' and British Anglo-Saxons' ancestry being local and predating these historical processes of invasion and aculturation. <BR/><BR/>C'mon!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67033268944747395582009-01-20T22:16:00.000+02:002009-01-20T22:16:00.000+02:00Explain me then how they arabized Egypt, Sudan or ...<I>Explain me then how they arabized Egypt, Sudan or North Africa.</I><BR/><BR/>I think the story is similar to why Arabic spread in Mesopotamia and Syria.<BR/><BR/>First, I would point out that Southern Arabia's inhospitable climate, with few resources, could probably support only a small human population compared to the lands we are talking about. The estimates of the Arab armies are about 40,000. So to make suggestions that an endless supply of humanbeings were some how flowing out of Southern Arabia or available to conquer, all these regions in, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel, Egypt and North Africa seems a logistical impossibility. The Byzantine Empire alone, probably had over 10 million people living in these regions. These people were probably defended by a standing army of 50 thousand or more Roman soldiers, which could quickly be increased in case of an invasion. So the Arabs who survived the wars with the Romans, could not have been that many. Therefore, it is hard for me to believe they were a majority anywhere. <BR/><BR/><BR/>As far as the Arabization process in North Africa is concerned, I suspect, Islam was initially presented (as it was to Lebanese and most Christian/ Jewish populations) as a religion that accepted the Jewish and Christian scriptures to promote harmony between the two traditions. Muhammad was probably presented as just another prophet in a string of many. The religion was probably viewed by the converting Christians as a fulfilment of some biblical prophesies, but most importantly as a way to get rid of their cruel Roman masters, with whom most Egyptians did not share an Indo European language (Latin and Greek associated with haplogroup R). Possibly, making the linguistic and cultural distance between the populations too much to bridge. <BR/><BR/>In contrast, the Arabs may have been seen by N. African Christians as distantly related, Ishmaelites (descendants of Egyptian Hagar), who spoke an Afro Asiatic language, like the North Africans themselves, livinng in Western Arabia, a region historically considered a part of Egypt. <BR/><BR/>I think, after the initial acceptance of Arabic and Islam in North Africa, Islam may have metamorphisised and adopted the Hadith code, as an attempt to further the Arabizing process, extract taxes from non Muslimms and consolidate Arab power. However, that would have come centuries later, since the Shariah was written more than 150 years after Islam had spread out of Arabia.J2hapydnahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06184566477246858915noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-71206342576106210022009-01-20T21:43:00.000+02:002009-01-20T21:43:00.000+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-13896439313809585952009-01-20T20:41:00.000+02:002009-01-20T20:41:00.000+02:00Maju said,"Explain me then how they arabized Egypt...Maju said,<BR/><BR/>"Explain me then how they arabized Egypt, Sudan or North Africa. Explain me please how Anatolia was Turkified (with nearly no Turkic genetics in it), how SW Europe was Romanized, how England was Anglicised, Hungary Magiarized, etc."<BR/><BR/>How dare you presume to know what constitutes "Arab genetics," "Turkic genetics," "Roman genetics," "Anglo-Saxon genetics," or "Magyar genetics"?Ebizurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16925110639823856429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-31711837288297330942009-01-20T14:44:00.000+02:002009-01-20T14:44:00.000+02:00"Does this tribe still exist? They existed al..."Does this tribe still exist? They existed also in late Roman times and (from memory) they played a role in the Muslim conquest by switching sides against Byzantium (they used to be Byzantine vassals but were Arabs and monophysites)."<BR/><BR/>A big % of the modern Lebanese Christians have Paternal Ghassanid lineage. About half of them moved from the border region between Syria-Jordan in the last 800 years & mixed with earlier Ghassanids.<BR/><BR/>The current Maronite Patriarch is Ghassanid.Mhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00598290192742725834noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-3732134168156613482009-01-20T10:49:00.000+02:002009-01-20T10:49:00.000+02:00The Highest J*(xJ2) population in Lebanon are the ...<I>The Highest J*(xJ2) population in Lebanon are the Ghassanid Christians -not the Muslims!-, because the Ghassanids didn't mix & you can't be a Ghassanid unless your father is Ghassanid!</I><BR/><BR/>Does this tribe still exist? They existed also in late Roman times and (from memory) they played a role in the Muslim conquest by switching sides against Byzantium (they used to be Byzantine vassals but were Arabs and monophysites).<BR/><BR/><I>However, a small and powerful unrelated minority can never force the majority to adopt s distant language of the minority.</I><BR/><BR/>They can. Clearly they can.<BR/><BR/><I>This discussion is in the context of how an ancient Lebanese population, adopted the language of Southern Arabs, when Southern Arabs are only 10% or less in the Lebanese population. I was saying that it probably happened because the native Lebanese population felt an affinity with the semitic Southern Arabs (J1, J and E3) who had defeated the ruling Indo European Greek minority.</I><BR/><BR/>Explain me then how they arabized Egypt, Sudan or North Africa. Explain me please how Anatolia was Turkified (with nearly no Turkic genetics in it), how SW Europe was Romanized, how England was Anglicised, Hungary Magiarized, etc.<BR/><BR/>And as said before Lebanon was not an independent country for milennia anyhow. So Lebanese as whole were a minority all the time.<BR/><BR/><I>maju was wondering if it was not because of the cruelty of the Hadith system</I><BR/><BR/>No. I argued that in the past law was much more ruthless and autocratic. The sharia is just an example of that age. Of course being second class citizen, as happened with religious groups not in power in that time (and sometimes even today) was one of the elements favoring religious and cultural homogeneization towards the dominant group. Any Christian in West Asia or any Muslim in Christian Spain, for example, percieved as evident that his/her position would be generally much better if he/she converted and adopted the dominant culture and language. On occasion that was enforced but most of the time it was just a beneficial option, causing a constant drip of "renegades", more or less opportunistic, more or less convinced. <BR/><BR/>But believe whatever you want. What I say is based in real history.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.com