...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
CANARY ISLANDERS in the "New World"
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by the lioness,: [QB] If you post another quote quoting an article but no mention of the title of the article or link I'm deleting the whole post. Above you quote the following article and below I will quote some more from it [QUOTE] https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1471-2148-9-181?site=bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com August 2009 [b]Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool: replacement of native lineages by European[/b] Rosa Fregel*1, Verónica Gomes2,3, Leonor Gusmão2, Ana M González1, Vicente M Cabrera1, António Amorim2 and Jose M Larruga1 Background: The origin and prevalence of the prehispanic settlers of the Canary Islands has attracted great multidisciplinary interest.[b] However, direct ancient DNA genetic studies on indigenous and historical 17th–18th century remains, using mitochondrial DNA as a female marker, have only recently been possible.[/b] In the present work, the analysis of Y-chromosome polymorphisms in the same samples, has shed light on the way the European colonization affected male and female Canary Island indigenous genetic pools, from the conquest to present-day times. Samples used in this study were excavated by different authorized archeological teams. The material ceded to perform molecular analyses consisted, in all cases, of teeth without fractures. Whenever possible, teeth were directly taken from their mandible alveolus. A total of 643 teeth corresponding to 493 different individuals were analyzed. This material belonged to different indigenous burials sampled from six of the seven islands: Fuerteventura (13 teeth from 10 individuals), Gran Canaria (230 teeth from 115 individuals), Tenerife (45 teeth from 39 individuals), Gomera (62 teeth from 52 individuals), Hierro (44 teeth from 44 individuals) and La Palma (43 teeth from 38 individuals). [/QUOTE]^^ what they are calling "indigenous" is relative. It means " who the Europeans found at a given location at a given point in time" The above says 17th–18th century remains. However the Spanish conquered the Island in 1402. Do I have to continue at this point ??? They colonized the islands, built palaces and produced sugar cane and wine there. _______________________ UPDATE TO 2017 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/887a/0250b655dfa27e1637148143ae0bf773ec74.pdf Genomic Analyses of Pre-European Conquest Human Remains from the Canary Islands Reveal Close Affinity to Modern North Africans The five individuals with the highest autosomal genome coverage (0.213 to 3.933) were directly radiocarbon dated at the Svedberg Laboratory (Uppsala University) (Figure S1B) and span approximately 400 calendar years from the 7th to the 11th centuries CE (Table 1). [IMG]https://images2.imgbox.com/2c/7b/hsGq1rwu_o.jpg[/IMG] ^^^ Here we have a more recent article an instead of 17th and 18th century remains we have remains which are truly pre-European conquest from the 7th to the 11th centuries CE. No haplogroup R detected Again what they are calling "indigenous" in the article you posted is relative. It means " who the Europeans found at a given location at a given point in time" and NONE of these remains is nearly old enough to have represented a population living there long enough to be biologically adapted to that region. The islands were visited by the Phoenicians, the Greeks and the Carthaginians prior to the Europeans wiki: According to Pliny the Elder, an expedition of Mauretanians sent by King Juba II (d. 23 CE) to the archipelago visited the islands, finding them uninhabited, but noting ruins of great buildings.When King Juba, the Roman protegé, dispatched a contingent to re-open the dye production facility at Mogador (historical name of Essaouira, Morocco) in the early 1st century,] Juba's naval force was subsequently sent on an exploration of the Canary Islands, using Mogador as their mission base. The name Islas Canarias is likely derived from the Latin name Canariae Insulae, meaning "Islands of the Dogs", a name that was applied only to Gran Canaria. According to the historian Pliny the Elder, the Mauretanian king Juba II named the island Canaria because it contained "vast multitudes of dogs of very large size". According to Pliny the Elder, Juba found the islands uninhabited, but found "a small temple of stone" and "some traces of buildings" A variety of theories regarding the origins of pre-colonial Canarians explain them by the hypothesis of a more recent immigration. Some scholars (mainly from the University of La Laguna, in Tenerife) defend the theory that the Canarian populations are Punic-Phoenician in origin. Professor D. Juan Álvarez Delgado, on the other hand, argued that the Canaries remained uninhabited until 100 BCE, when Greek and Roman sailors began to explore the area. In the second half of the 1st century BCE, King Juba II of Numidia abandoned North African prisoners on the islands, who eventually became the pre-Hispanic Canarians. If the first inhabitants were abandoned prisoners, this explains, according to Álvarez Delgado, their lack of navigational acumen. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3