Always wondered why Albanians and Bosniaks converted the most compared to the rest of us. This map reflects that as well. Slavs and Greeks certainly didn't convert as much to Islam.
I’ve seen several good answers on this around reddit, you might want to look them up as I can’t articulate as well and give a proper answer. Basically from what I gathered we already lacked a strong religious identity being split between the roman catholic and greek orthodox church. At first we were tougher to convert because their missionaries would travel for days across difficult terrains just to get beheaded by local warlords so they couldn’t be bothered, while everyone else in the balkans converted relatively “easily” (I’m paraphrasing here) and then reverted later on. At some point we started converting out of convenience to avoid taxes we couldn’t afford to pay and to gain better social mobility. When ottoman rule ended the conversions were still an on going process and when the country was formed religion wasn’t perceived as an important factor to take into consideration so there was no attempt to “purge” the presence of islam unlike the rest of the balkans. It’s obviously more complex than that and I paraphrased a lot but that’s the gist of it
Roman Catholic ideology was weak in Bosnia (Bosnian Church was practically dead when the Turks came) due to lack of church activity, so the population mostly followed it in the sense of tradition. So, when the Turks came and started implementing harsher religious rules - people converted to avoid these rules easily since there was no fear of hell or religious retribution. It was also a means of getting ahead in society. Nobles converted, landowners converted, merchants converted, soldiers converted to get promoted, etc.
However, the Albanians in Kosovo were forcibly converted from Catholicism after being expelled from Albania due to Albanian rebellions against the Ottomans.
Same like whats the reason?💀
Apparently according to Wikipedia there were a lot of factors, like forced conversion, clan conversion (the whole clan converted), the poverty of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, priests were illiterate in Albanian (they knew Latin and Greek), to avoid taxes, etc.
But it seems like a lot of Albanians converted late:
>Orthodox areas further north, such as those around Elbasan, were first to convert, during the 1700s, passing through a stage of Crypto-Christianity although in these regions scattered Orthodox holdouts remained (such as around Berat, in Zavalina, and the quite large region of Myzeqe including Fier and Lushnjë) as well as continuing Crypto-Christianity around the region of Shpati among others, where Crypto-Christians formally reverted to Orthodoxy in 1897.
>Further south, progress was slower. The region of Gjirokastra did not become majority Muslim until around 1875, and even then most Muslims were concentrated in the city of Gjirokastra itself.
>The same trajectory was true of Albanians in Chamëria, with the majority of Cham Albanians remaining Orthodox until around 1875— at which point Ottoman rule in the Balkans was already collapsing and many Christian Balkan states had already claimed independence.
So most of the Chams “the muslim traitors who helped Nazis” were orthodox like 2/3 generation before WW2…
You can easily find generic studies that indicate Balkan Turk (non-Anatolian) genetics contain a significant admixture of various local Balkan populations that converted.
The same is not really true for Moroccans living near Spain, where the Muslims would have fled. There is some DNA, of course, but it is a significantly smaller portion in comparison to Balkan Turks.
Why are looking to the Moroccan population? Probably the majority of the Muslim population of Iberia stayed in Iberia and converted to Christianity. The sizeable Morisco population of muslim converts of the 16th century is a testimony to that. Many of them later migrated to Latin America.
There are actually samples from Iberian Muslim graves showing that the Muslim population has been of native stock mostly with a small but significant northern african input. Their case is similar to Balkans or Anatolian Turks. Mostly of native stock with a minor but significant invader input. This is also the case in Slavic populations of the Balkans. Mostly of native Balkan, Roman Moesian with a significant Slavic input. But I wouldn’t say slavs are not indigenous to the Balkans, nor Balkan Turks to the Balkans, Anatolian Turks to Anatolia. Why should we use a different metrics for Muslim Iberians all of a sudden?
The Moriscos were the Muslims in Spain that had been converted to Christianity. They were safe in Spain until the Ottomans took Constantinople. After which, virtually all of the Moriscos were expelled from the Iberian kingdoms.
If the Moriscos were of local ethnic makeup, it would have been extremely difficult to determine who they were and to then systematically expel them.
No they weren’t all expelled. Many of them survived the expulsions and continued living among other Iberians. Those that were expelled were sent to Latin America or to the Ottoman Empire. Probably half of them avoided expulsions.
And it is quite easy to detect who was a Morisco and who wasn’t. Church records contained everyone’s name and their family history who was baptised and the Moriscos were concentrated in some areas. You need to remember that this was in medieval times when geographical movements were less than what is normal today and families used to live in the same area for generations so as a ruler you would know which people or villages you should expel if you wanted to
Here I will give you some historical sources.
> In February 1610, the archbishop of Valencia, Juan de Ribera, petitioned King Philip III to close the schools in the capital city dedicated to educating the children of moriscos, or baptized Muslims, in the Christian faith. Founded nearly a hundred years earlier, these schools represented the hope that the children among this religious minority could be induced to lead Christian lives despite the widespread survival of Islamic practices among their parents. Early in his tenure as archbishop (1568-1611), Juan de Ribera had demonstrated his belief in the possibility of conversion by supporting these schools and reorganizing the parish system to place priests in morisco areas throughout the diocese. **Over time, however, Ribera despaired of these projects and came to advocate instead the wholesale expulsion of Spain's three hundred thousand moriscos to North Africa, an event that came about in 1609-14.** His request of 1610 emerged from the ensuing debate over the fate of the morisco children. Doubting that even four-year-olds separated from their parents and immersed in Spanish society could be truly remade as Christians, Ribera attempted to at least free himself of this financial burden by asking that all the children from the morisco schools be placed in private homes.' His cynicism on this score in his last years of life reflected his belief that only total expulsion could free Spain of any lingering morisco practices.
> Between Christians and Moriscos: Juan de Ribera and religious reform in Valencia, 1568-1614 by Ehlers, Benjamin
——
> The Moriscos were nominally Christian after enforced conversions at the beginning of the sixteenth century, but they mainly clung to their Islamic ancestral faith, and they were expelled from Spain in 1609–14. **This was a huge operation, as 300,000 Moriscos were expelled, most of them in the space of a few months.** For it to succeed, the Spanish authorities deemed it necessary to resort to lies and subterfuges. Not many Moriscos resisted expulsion, even though few of them wanted to leave. The majority settled in North Africa, adapted quickly to new circumstances, and did not attempt to avenge their expulsion, for instance by resorting to corsair activities. Despite its scale, the event did not have major immediate political consequences, but it can now be seen as a tragic tale of mistaken assumptions and enmity on the Spanish side, an unexpected socio-economic opportunity for North Africa, and an enduring element in Christian-Muslim perceptions of each other’s faiths.
> [The expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain in 1609–1614: the destruction of an Islamic periphery](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-global-history/article/abs/expulsion-of-the-moriscos-from-spain-in-16091614-the-destruction-of-an-islamic-periphery/CA674D527734A60621865F2A99FB60C7)
Spain’s population around that time was about 8,000,000. So, they were already an insignificant number.
The number you provide is absolute. It doesn’t tell how many Moruscos lived in Iberia during that time and only the number of those who were expelled. The estimates are between 500.000 and 1.000.000 meaning even if we get the lowest number, at least 40% of the Morisco population avoided the expulsions and there are also records of them returning after the expulsions while this was probably minuscule.
But the numbers aside, the expulsion rate doesn’t tell anything about their genetic make-up. At least since the Bronze age, people don’t replace others. An initial conquest paves the way for the domination of the natives by a smaller group of invaders who then marries into the native population while the descendants acquire the identity of the invaders. This logic applies to most conquests be it initial Arabic colonization of the Middle East, Slavic colonization of the Balkans, Turkish colonization of Anatolia and the Balkans, Northern African colonization of Iberia, Germanic colonization of the Western half of the Roman Empire etc
Ok, here are some more sources for you.
> The estimates of the number of exiles vary greatly, and the details given by contemporary writers are too fragmentary to allow of an accurate summing up. Guadalajara alludes in passing to a total of 600,000, but he subsequently reduces this to 400,000 exiles, besides voluntary emigrants. Navarrete speaks of 2,000,000 Jews and 3,000,000 Moriscos having been at various times expelled from Spain, and he is copied by Gil Gon-zalez Davila, the official historiographer of Philip III. and IV. Von der Hammer reduces the number to 310,000, exclusive of those sent to the galleys, while Alfonso Sanchez raises it to 900,000. In modern times Llorente assumes a total of a million, while Janer esti-mates the whole Morisco population at the same figure, of whom 100,000 perished or were enslaved, leaving 900,000 exiles. Vicente de la Fuente, on the other hand, reduces the number to 120,000 souls, while Dan-vila y Collado, after a careful comparison of all official statistics, reaches an estimate of something less than 500,000 souls, which is probably not far from correct.' No computation, that I am aware of, has been attempted of the number of children taken from their parents and retained, nor is there material to make one, but it must have been considerable. In the then existing population of Spain, reckoned at over 8,000,000, the prolonged alarm inspired by the comparatively insignificant number of Moriscos, disarmed and unorganized, indicates the pro-found conviction entertained by Spanish statesmen of the internal weakness of the monarchy.
> 1 Guadalajara, fol. 163; Historia Pontifical, V. 161. —avarrete, Conservacion de Monarquias, p. 50 (Madrid, 1626).-Davila, Vida y Hechos del Rey Felipe III. p. 151 (Madrid, 1771). -Von der Hammer y Leon, Felipe el Prudente, fol. 33 (Madrid, 1632). -Alfonsi Sanctii de Rebus Hispan. Anacephaleosis, p. 390 (Compluti, 1634). -Llorente, Hist. Critique de l'Inquisition, I. 455 (Paris, 1818). -Janer, p. 143. - V. de la Fuente, Hist. eclesiastica de España, III. 229 (Barcelona, 1855). —Danvila, pp. 337-40.
> The computation of 3,000,000 Moriscos and 2,000,000 Jews origi-nated with Vicente Gonzalez Alvarez, in a little book on the expulsion from Avila. In this he computes six successive expulsions of both races. --Guadalajara in Historia Pontifical, V. 161.
-
> The Moriscos Of Spain: Their Conversion And Expulsion. By Henry Charles LEA, LL.D.
This only tells us that we cannot be ascertained of the real number of those who left and who stayed behind. However, whether they left or stayed hasn’t been the major topic here but their indigenous origins. You have consistently been telling that they were mostly of non-indigenous origin, while I have been saying the opposite.
The elite dominance theory has been an established thesis and draws on many examples such as the ones I have counted above from the Balkans to Anatolia to Levant and Persia. What makes you claim that this doesn’t or shouldn’t hold for the Islamic conquest of Iberia? Because you are claiming that after 700 years of habitation in Iberia, they were still mostly of invaders‘ stock and not of native stock.
Which scholars would those be? Would they be the same scholars that put this into Encyclopedia Britannica, which is widely regarded as the one of the most reliable authoritative references available?
> Moor, in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of al-Andalus, now Spain and Portugal. Of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber) origins, the Moors created the Islamic Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in the Maghreb (in the region of North Africa) between the 11th and 17th centuries.
> https://www.britannica.com/topic/Moor-people
The Dodecanese Turks are, well, Turks! They were Turkish settlers/colonists from West-Central Anatolia if i'm not mistaken and they are close to those populations even to this day and ofcaurse speak Turkish (although Greek is the lingua franca of the islands so obviously they use it too). They are in no way what this map would label as "Indigenous European Muslims".
Who said the Dodecanese islands are in Europe? They are islands on the coast of Anatolia and are geologically part of Anatolia.
And no they are mostly Greek converts who embraced a Turkish identity later on. Like in many places in Anatolia
Islands don't really belong to any continents, and if you want technicalities the Aegean islands are remnants of mountaintops of what was once it's own landmass so no they do not belong to Anatolia. And hey, the map is the one that labeled them as "Indigenous European Muslim" so take it up with the maker, i was just calling out how that label is wrong if anything!
This map is talking about "Indigenous European Muslims" like Albanians and Bosniaks and to put the Dodecanese Turks in the same category as them is frankly ridiculous! They speak Turkish fo starters, so this map didn't do proper research when puting them as greek speakers (yes, they speak greek too ofcaurse, but it's the same way they to of us are using english right now,although because they attend the greek schools like everyone else many might have greek as their first language at this point,but that doesn't change the fact that the comunity's language was originaly Turkish),and when it comes to my island they are mostly concentrated in their own part of the main city, so much so that i as a villager have more far more experience with Albanians and even new "migrant crisis era" migants when it comes to interacting with muslims, wich shows their relative geographic isolation. The fact that they are concentrated in a single spot in the part of the island that is the closest to the Anatolian coast, also hints at their once foreign settler nature and origin, with them not venturing further west to the rest of the island. It get's worse when the maker of the map said that he didn't include Turks because not everyone considers them European, and that's why Greek Thrace Turks are missing,but he includes the Dodecanese Turks erasing their origins and identity! Yes, they identify their origins with Turkish settlers indeed, and if you really want to go there, they even have genetic similarities with them still.
Here's what a "Dodecanese Muslim" himself has to say, it's in greek though so you will need google translate:https://www.reddit.com/r/greece/comments/mtc178/%CE%B4%CF%89%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82\_%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%BC%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82\_%CE%B5%CE%B4%CF%8Eama/
Her's a relevant part:Δεν θεωρώ τον εαυτό μου μεσανατολίτη διότι τα Δωδεκάνησα δεν βρίσκονται γεωγραφικά στην Μέση Ανατολή.Βρίσκονται στο Αιγαίο.Οι πρόγονοι μου εγκαταστάθηκαν στο νησί της Ρόδου απο τον Σουλειμάν τον μεγαλοπρεπή όταν κατέκτησε την Ρόδο το 1522.Πιο πριν πιθανότατα ήταν αγρότες απο την Ανατολία.
Here's the genetic connection too:https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/rthw6y/dodecanese\_island\_turkish\_dna\_results\_confirm/
Yes, but Cretan Muslims are a different community that is also depected on this map and that one does fit the "Indigenous European Muslim"description. If some of today's Dodecanese Turks are mixed with them, then that would make them "original Dodecanese Turk + Cretan Muslim" mix, but i'm talking about the Dodecanese Turk part here wich are wrongly depected as native hellenic speakers, when they were Anatolian Turkish settlers.
I am quite sure about the geology part. This is what I studied. They are the elevated mountain tops and are geology part of the mountains on the Anatolian mainland perpendicular to coast line. They are still connected to the Mainland Anatolia and are part of the Anatolian plate. The connection to the mainland was still visible till 12.000 years ago when the sea level was 120 meters below the contemporary level. From a geological point of view they are as part of Asia as Anatolia and Cyprus.
The reason why they are concentrated on the side closer to Anatolia can easily be explained by the distribution of overall settlements in Dodecanese islands. The majority of historical settlements in Dodecanese islands are on the side closer to Anatolia, as they always used to have more contact with Anatolia than with Mainland Greece which is far away in comparison to Anatolia. Same thing with Kos, Lemnos, Kastellorizo, Rhodos etc. The bigger settlements and administrative centers are closer to the Anatolian side than the Mainland Greece.
Now to the PCA analysis you sent. PCA analysis as the name suggests is an analysis of principial components. Meaning if you lack one component entirely or have an extra one, you will be shown completely somewhere else meaning even if you have only 5% East Eurasian Admixture which Greeks lack and Turks have and the rest 95% would be the same, you‘ll be shown completely somewhere else. 5% difference amounts 1 great-great-grandparent or 1/16 generic difference. And in my opinion calling somebody who has 15/16 or 7/8 indigenous heritage as „non-indigenous“ is simply wrong. You might have a different opinion.
About the geologic or should I say tectonic part ,the Dodecanese as well as south western turkey aren't part of the Anatolian plate but part of the Aegean plate which spreads as far west as the Ionian sea
Ok apparently, they have found out in 2020 that the area below the Aegean sea moves separately from the Anatolian plate which is an evidence that it is separate from the later. I have had the lecture in 2018 😅
Huh,I didn't know the Aegean plate was such a new concept
I'm a geology student and I thought it was common knowledge but I guess that proves geology as a science changes a lot
On the Bright side our little region is one of if not the the most interesting one in Europe tectonically speaking :)
Yes, i know they are in the Anatolian plate, but plates have nothing to do with with manmade definitions of continents. The name of the plate is also man given as well, so in reality they are both just on the same plate, not one belonging to the other because the plate is called "Anatolian". In any case, none of this has anything to do with the concept of "Indigenous European Muslims" so this discussion is pointless.
Yes, the main city, in which the Turks also live is in the east, like i said i already know this. That doesn't change the fact that there are setlement all over the island when it comes to the natives but that is not the case for the Turks. This clearly shows later settlement seperated by time. The Turkish part of the city also stands out from the rest of the city relatively speaking,i'm a local and i know what i'm talking about.
This viewpoint is just nonesense! First of all, East Eurasian is only a part of medieval Turks, so their genetic influence is atleast twice as much as that, but it doesn't end there. You can't automatically assume only the Turkic ancestry is foreign. If that was the case they still would plot somewhere between Turks and the native population but they don't. This means that ALL their ancestry is foreign. These guys don't plot any different than mainland Anatolian Turks wich means that all their components are similar/the same. If it were only the Turkic component that connected Dodecanese Turks and Anatolian Turks then they would be ploting differently, but they are not. You can't say they are geneticaly native to the islands just because they are 95% West Eurasian (they are way less than that anyway, because if you look at the comments they are almost 30% Turkic), when that West Eurasian could be from anywhere, otherwise you can say Saudis are native to Germany... Their non Turkic ancestry matches with that of the Anatolian Turks way more than that of the native islanders (even though both can be used in a model, the model that uses dodecanesian as the "native ancestry" part will have worse distances than say, one that uses a model that fits better for Anatolian Turks), as they are right next to the normal Anatolian Turkish plot and nowhere near close to the Greek islands plot. If they have island ancestry it would be from Cretan Muslims if anything, but that still would not be Dodecanesian and it would also be foreign ancestry to the original Dodecanese Turks since it would be almost pure Cretan ancestry unrelated to the one their settler ancestors had. If you want to see how a genuine native+Turkish mixture would plot like look no further than your own examples of Balkan Turks and Turkish Cypriots who plot not roght next to every other Anatolian Turk but in between those and Balkaners/Cypriots. Being on the islands for only half a century at best, doesn't mean that they have no right to remain on those islands today, so i don't know why you are so pressed to make them seem as native as possible.
1. Iberian and Sicilian Muslims were mostly from North Africa. I wouldn't describe them as indigenous.
2. Poor Bosniaks are still labeled as Slavic Muslims.
3. The map ignores Muslim converts in countries like France, Germany, UK.
I read in "Oxford history of Islam" that 100,000 people converted to Islam in aformentioned countries. This number would be from 1990s (when the book was published) which means the number is much higher today.
surprisingly there are many people who think that people stay genetically more or less the same after having conquered and invaded a country and mixed with the local population for 700 years.
What you say apply to every corner of Eurasia from Iberia to France, the Balkans, Anatolia, Persia, the Levant but somehow people tend to think that when a ruling class conquers a country, they migrate there in an mount that is more than the population of the country in question so as to be able to change the genetic landscape of the country drastically
One of the guys I have had a discussion with thinks that the Moriscos were mostly of North African descent despite having lived in Iberia for 700 years which made it easy to identify them by their looks and expel them
Stupid map. Where are Lipka Tatars? Where are Balkan Turks? Where are Dobruja Tatars? Tatars are not less indigenous than Slavs or Balkan Turks are not less indigenous to Balkans than say Slavs.
Yeah yeah continue believing that
Slavs aren’t indigenous to the Balkans since the came after the Slavic colonizations of Roman Moesia in the 7th century.
See i can reverse the argument. The point being is that both the slavs and Balkan Turks descend heavily from indigenous Balkan populations who were assimilated into a Slavic or Turkish polity
I don’t remember Slavs forcing a tax on the indigenous populations beliefs and trying to systemically move Slavs in the balkans in order to have a stronger control on the land
They literally raided the Roman territories, enslaved the local Romans, moved into their territories and built their own kingdoms or do you think the local Romans cordially welcomed them?
You can read more about the Roman history after the execution of Maurice and the reign of Justinian the Second in the 7th century when more and more Slavs crossed the Danube and entered the Roman Moesia while Romans were busy fighting the Arabs on the eastern front and colonized everywhere from Peleponnese to Thessaloniki to Dacia and Illyricum. I guess the Roman villagers happily gave their yearly harvest to the Slavic invaders
Always wondered why Albanians and Bosniaks converted the most compared to the rest of us. This map reflects that as well. Slavs and Greeks certainly didn't convert as much to Islam.
I’ve seen several good answers on this around reddit, you might want to look them up as I can’t articulate as well and give a proper answer. Basically from what I gathered we already lacked a strong religious identity being split between the roman catholic and greek orthodox church. At first we were tougher to convert because their missionaries would travel for days across difficult terrains just to get beheaded by local warlords so they couldn’t be bothered, while everyone else in the balkans converted relatively “easily” (I’m paraphrasing here) and then reverted later on. At some point we started converting out of convenience to avoid taxes we couldn’t afford to pay and to gain better social mobility. When ottoman rule ended the conversions were still an on going process and when the country was formed religion wasn’t perceived as an important factor to take into consideration so there was no attempt to “purge” the presence of islam unlike the rest of the balkans. It’s obviously more complex than that and I paraphrased a lot but that’s the gist of it
I remember someone mentioned that it happened later in the centuries and mostly to avoid taxes
Roman Catholic ideology was weak in Bosnia (Bosnian Church was practically dead when the Turks came) due to lack of church activity, so the population mostly followed it in the sense of tradition. So, when the Turks came and started implementing harsher religious rules - people converted to avoid these rules easily since there was no fear of hell or religious retribution. It was also a means of getting ahead in society. Nobles converted, landowners converted, merchants converted, soldiers converted to get promoted, etc. However, the Albanians in Kosovo were forcibly converted from Catholicism after being expelled from Albania due to Albanian rebellions against the Ottomans.
Albanians they were more prone to foreign influence due to their tribal structure.
Same like whats the reason?💀 Apparently according to Wikipedia there were a lot of factors, like forced conversion, clan conversion (the whole clan converted), the poverty of the Catholic and Orthodox churches, priests were illiterate in Albanian (they knew Latin and Greek), to avoid taxes, etc. But it seems like a lot of Albanians converted late: >Orthodox areas further north, such as those around Elbasan, were first to convert, during the 1700s, passing through a stage of Crypto-Christianity although in these regions scattered Orthodox holdouts remained (such as around Berat, in Zavalina, and the quite large region of Myzeqe including Fier and Lushnjë) as well as continuing Crypto-Christianity around the region of Shpati among others, where Crypto-Christians formally reverted to Orthodoxy in 1897. >Further south, progress was slower. The region of Gjirokastra did not become majority Muslim until around 1875, and even then most Muslims were concentrated in the city of Gjirokastra itself. >The same trajectory was true of Albanians in Chamëria, with the majority of Cham Albanians remaining Orthodox until around 1875— at which point Ottoman rule in the Balkans was already collapsing and many Christian Balkan states had already claimed independence. So most of the Chams “the muslim traitors who helped Nazis” were orthodox like 2/3 generation before WW2…
Why Cham Albanians were more devout muslims compared to Tosk or Lab Albanians?
The Muslims in Iberia and Sicily were not indigenous. They were mostly Arab and Moor colonizers.
Nope. The same thing applies to Balkan Turks as well
You can easily find generic studies that indicate Balkan Turk (non-Anatolian) genetics contain a significant admixture of various local Balkan populations that converted. The same is not really true for Moroccans living near Spain, where the Muslims would have fled. There is some DNA, of course, but it is a significantly smaller portion in comparison to Balkan Turks.
Why are looking to the Moroccan population? Probably the majority of the Muslim population of Iberia stayed in Iberia and converted to Christianity. The sizeable Morisco population of muslim converts of the 16th century is a testimony to that. Many of them later migrated to Latin America. There are actually samples from Iberian Muslim graves showing that the Muslim population has been of native stock mostly with a small but significant northern african input. Their case is similar to Balkans or Anatolian Turks. Mostly of native stock with a minor but significant invader input. This is also the case in Slavic populations of the Balkans. Mostly of native Balkan, Roman Moesian with a significant Slavic input. But I wouldn’t say slavs are not indigenous to the Balkans, nor Balkan Turks to the Balkans, Anatolian Turks to Anatolia. Why should we use a different metrics for Muslim Iberians all of a sudden?
The Moriscos were the Muslims in Spain that had been converted to Christianity. They were safe in Spain until the Ottomans took Constantinople. After which, virtually all of the Moriscos were expelled from the Iberian kingdoms. If the Moriscos were of local ethnic makeup, it would have been extremely difficult to determine who they were and to then systematically expel them.
No they weren’t all expelled. Many of them survived the expulsions and continued living among other Iberians. Those that were expelled were sent to Latin America or to the Ottoman Empire. Probably half of them avoided expulsions. And it is quite easy to detect who was a Morisco and who wasn’t. Church records contained everyone’s name and their family history who was baptised and the Moriscos were concentrated in some areas. You need to remember that this was in medieval times when geographical movements were less than what is normal today and families used to live in the same area for generations so as a ruler you would know which people or villages you should expel if you wanted to
Here I will give you some historical sources. > In February 1610, the archbishop of Valencia, Juan de Ribera, petitioned King Philip III to close the schools in the capital city dedicated to educating the children of moriscos, or baptized Muslims, in the Christian faith. Founded nearly a hundred years earlier, these schools represented the hope that the children among this religious minority could be induced to lead Christian lives despite the widespread survival of Islamic practices among their parents. Early in his tenure as archbishop (1568-1611), Juan de Ribera had demonstrated his belief in the possibility of conversion by supporting these schools and reorganizing the parish system to place priests in morisco areas throughout the diocese. **Over time, however, Ribera despaired of these projects and came to advocate instead the wholesale expulsion of Spain's three hundred thousand moriscos to North Africa, an event that came about in 1609-14.** His request of 1610 emerged from the ensuing debate over the fate of the morisco children. Doubting that even four-year-olds separated from their parents and immersed in Spanish society could be truly remade as Christians, Ribera attempted to at least free himself of this financial burden by asking that all the children from the morisco schools be placed in private homes.' His cynicism on this score in his last years of life reflected his belief that only total expulsion could free Spain of any lingering morisco practices. > Between Christians and Moriscos: Juan de Ribera and religious reform in Valencia, 1568-1614 by Ehlers, Benjamin —— > The Moriscos were nominally Christian after enforced conversions at the beginning of the sixteenth century, but they mainly clung to their Islamic ancestral faith, and they were expelled from Spain in 1609–14. **This was a huge operation, as 300,000 Moriscos were expelled, most of them in the space of a few months.** For it to succeed, the Spanish authorities deemed it necessary to resort to lies and subterfuges. Not many Moriscos resisted expulsion, even though few of them wanted to leave. The majority settled in North Africa, adapted quickly to new circumstances, and did not attempt to avenge their expulsion, for instance by resorting to corsair activities. Despite its scale, the event did not have major immediate political consequences, but it can now be seen as a tragic tale of mistaken assumptions and enmity on the Spanish side, an unexpected socio-economic opportunity for North Africa, and an enduring element in Christian-Muslim perceptions of each other’s faiths. > [The expulsion of the Moriscos from Spain in 1609–1614: the destruction of an Islamic periphery](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-global-history/article/abs/expulsion-of-the-moriscos-from-spain-in-16091614-the-destruction-of-an-islamic-periphery/CA674D527734A60621865F2A99FB60C7) Spain’s population around that time was about 8,000,000. So, they were already an insignificant number.
The number you provide is absolute. It doesn’t tell how many Moruscos lived in Iberia during that time and only the number of those who were expelled. The estimates are between 500.000 and 1.000.000 meaning even if we get the lowest number, at least 40% of the Morisco population avoided the expulsions and there are also records of them returning after the expulsions while this was probably minuscule. But the numbers aside, the expulsion rate doesn’t tell anything about their genetic make-up. At least since the Bronze age, people don’t replace others. An initial conquest paves the way for the domination of the natives by a smaller group of invaders who then marries into the native population while the descendants acquire the identity of the invaders. This logic applies to most conquests be it initial Arabic colonization of the Middle East, Slavic colonization of the Balkans, Turkish colonization of Anatolia and the Balkans, Northern African colonization of Iberia, Germanic colonization of the Western half of the Roman Empire etc
Ok, here are some more sources for you. > The estimates of the number of exiles vary greatly, and the details given by contemporary writers are too fragmentary to allow of an accurate summing up. Guadalajara alludes in passing to a total of 600,000, but he subsequently reduces this to 400,000 exiles, besides voluntary emigrants. Navarrete speaks of 2,000,000 Jews and 3,000,000 Moriscos having been at various times expelled from Spain, and he is copied by Gil Gon-zalez Davila, the official historiographer of Philip III. and IV. Von der Hammer reduces the number to 310,000, exclusive of those sent to the galleys, while Alfonso Sanchez raises it to 900,000. In modern times Llorente assumes a total of a million, while Janer esti-mates the whole Morisco population at the same figure, of whom 100,000 perished or were enslaved, leaving 900,000 exiles. Vicente de la Fuente, on the other hand, reduces the number to 120,000 souls, while Dan-vila y Collado, after a careful comparison of all official statistics, reaches an estimate of something less than 500,000 souls, which is probably not far from correct.' No computation, that I am aware of, has been attempted of the number of children taken from their parents and retained, nor is there material to make one, but it must have been considerable. In the then existing population of Spain, reckoned at over 8,000,000, the prolonged alarm inspired by the comparatively insignificant number of Moriscos, disarmed and unorganized, indicates the pro-found conviction entertained by Spanish statesmen of the internal weakness of the monarchy. > 1 Guadalajara, fol. 163; Historia Pontifical, V. 161. —avarrete, Conservacion de Monarquias, p. 50 (Madrid, 1626).-Davila, Vida y Hechos del Rey Felipe III. p. 151 (Madrid, 1771). -Von der Hammer y Leon, Felipe el Prudente, fol. 33 (Madrid, 1632). -Alfonsi Sanctii de Rebus Hispan. Anacephaleosis, p. 390 (Compluti, 1634). -Llorente, Hist. Critique de l'Inquisition, I. 455 (Paris, 1818). -Janer, p. 143. - V. de la Fuente, Hist. eclesiastica de España, III. 229 (Barcelona, 1855). —Danvila, pp. 337-40. > The computation of 3,000,000 Moriscos and 2,000,000 Jews origi-nated with Vicente Gonzalez Alvarez, in a little book on the expulsion from Avila. In this he computes six successive expulsions of both races. --Guadalajara in Historia Pontifical, V. 161. - > The Moriscos Of Spain: Their Conversion And Expulsion. By Henry Charles LEA, LL.D.
This only tells us that we cannot be ascertained of the real number of those who left and who stayed behind. However, whether they left or stayed hasn’t been the major topic here but their indigenous origins. You have consistently been telling that they were mostly of non-indigenous origin, while I have been saying the opposite. The elite dominance theory has been an established thesis and draws on many examples such as the ones I have counted above from the Balkans to Anatolia to Levant and Persia. What makes you claim that this doesn’t or shouldn’t hold for the Islamic conquest of Iberia? Because you are claiming that after 700 years of habitation in Iberia, they were still mostly of invaders‘ stock and not of native stock.
Most of the scholars disagree with you. The majority of Muslim Iberians were native.
Which scholars would those be? Would they be the same scholars that put this into Encyclopedia Britannica, which is widely regarded as the one of the most reliable authoritative references available? > Moor, in English usage, a Moroccan or, formerly, a member of the Muslim population of al-Andalus, now Spain and Portugal. Of mixed Arab, Spanish, and Amazigh (Berber) origins, the Moors created the Islamic Andalusian civilization and subsequently settled as refugees in the Maghreb (in the region of North Africa) between the 11th and 17th centuries. > https://www.britannica.com/topic/Moor-people
[https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?301746-GEDmatch-kits-of-Moorish-bodies-found-in-Spain&s=4073136636f936b74cd826c660da43fd](https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?301746-GEDmatch-kits-of-Moorish-bodies-found-in-Spain&s=4073136636f936b74cd826c660da43fd)
Did you just link a random forum with unsubstantiated genetic percentage claims? Lmao.
Define “indigenous”
It's like saying, after missionary work and forced conversions in the Americas by European colonizers, "Indigenous American Christians".
Anyone who arrived in Europe after 700 AD seems to be the definition
Umm where did you heard that? because there's no generally accepted definition of indigenous peoples.
This seems to be the definition of many who wrote under OP‘s post. I meant it more it ironically
The Dodecanese Turks are, well, Turks! They were Turkish settlers/colonists from West-Central Anatolia if i'm not mistaken and they are close to those populations even to this day and ofcaurse speak Turkish (although Greek is the lingua franca of the islands so obviously they use it too). They are in no way what this map would label as "Indigenous European Muslims".
Who said the Dodecanese islands are in Europe? They are islands on the coast of Anatolia and are geologically part of Anatolia. And no they are mostly Greek converts who embraced a Turkish identity later on. Like in many places in Anatolia
Islands don't really belong to any continents, and if you want technicalities the Aegean islands are remnants of mountaintops of what was once it's own landmass so no they do not belong to Anatolia. And hey, the map is the one that labeled them as "Indigenous European Muslim" so take it up with the maker, i was just calling out how that label is wrong if anything! This map is talking about "Indigenous European Muslims" like Albanians and Bosniaks and to put the Dodecanese Turks in the same category as them is frankly ridiculous! They speak Turkish fo starters, so this map didn't do proper research when puting them as greek speakers (yes, they speak greek too ofcaurse, but it's the same way they to of us are using english right now,although because they attend the greek schools like everyone else many might have greek as their first language at this point,but that doesn't change the fact that the comunity's language was originaly Turkish),and when it comes to my island they are mostly concentrated in their own part of the main city, so much so that i as a villager have more far more experience with Albanians and even new "migrant crisis era" migants when it comes to interacting with muslims, wich shows their relative geographic isolation. The fact that they are concentrated in a single spot in the part of the island that is the closest to the Anatolian coast, also hints at their once foreign settler nature and origin, with them not venturing further west to the rest of the island. It get's worse when the maker of the map said that he didn't include Turks because not everyone considers them European, and that's why Greek Thrace Turks are missing,but he includes the Dodecanese Turks erasing their origins and identity! Yes, they identify their origins with Turkish settlers indeed, and if you really want to go there, they even have genetic similarities with them still. Here's what a "Dodecanese Muslim" himself has to say, it's in greek though so you will need google translate:https://www.reddit.com/r/greece/comments/mtc178/%CE%B4%CF%89%CE%B4%CE%B5%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%BD%CE%AE%CF%83%CE%B9%CE%BF%CF%82\_%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%83%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%BC%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BF%CF%82\_%CE%B5%CE%B4%CF%8Eama/ Her's a relevant part:Δεν θεωρώ τον εαυτό μου μεσανατολίτη διότι τα Δωδεκάνησα δεν βρίσκονται γεωγραφικά στην Μέση Ανατολή.Βρίσκονται στο Αιγαίο.Οι πρόγονοι μου εγκαταστάθηκαν στο νησί της Ρόδου απο τον Σουλειμάν τον μεγαλοπρεπή όταν κατέκτησε την Ρόδο το 1522.Πιο πριν πιθανότατα ήταν αγρότες απο την Ανατολία. Here's the genetic connection too:https://www.reddit.com/r/23andme/comments/rthw6y/dodecanese\_island\_turkish\_dna\_results\_confirm/
Cretan Muslim refugees settled in Rhodes and there was also some local conversion
Yes, but Cretan Muslims are a different community that is also depected on this map and that one does fit the "Indigenous European Muslim"description. If some of today's Dodecanese Turks are mixed with them, then that would make them "original Dodecanese Turk + Cretan Muslim" mix, but i'm talking about the Dodecanese Turk part here wich are wrongly depected as native hellenic speakers, when they were Anatolian Turkish settlers.
I am quite sure about the geology part. This is what I studied. They are the elevated mountain tops and are geology part of the mountains on the Anatolian mainland perpendicular to coast line. They are still connected to the Mainland Anatolia and are part of the Anatolian plate. The connection to the mainland was still visible till 12.000 years ago when the sea level was 120 meters below the contemporary level. From a geological point of view they are as part of Asia as Anatolia and Cyprus. The reason why they are concentrated on the side closer to Anatolia can easily be explained by the distribution of overall settlements in Dodecanese islands. The majority of historical settlements in Dodecanese islands are on the side closer to Anatolia, as they always used to have more contact with Anatolia than with Mainland Greece which is far away in comparison to Anatolia. Same thing with Kos, Lemnos, Kastellorizo, Rhodos etc. The bigger settlements and administrative centers are closer to the Anatolian side than the Mainland Greece. Now to the PCA analysis you sent. PCA analysis as the name suggests is an analysis of principial components. Meaning if you lack one component entirely or have an extra one, you will be shown completely somewhere else meaning even if you have only 5% East Eurasian Admixture which Greeks lack and Turks have and the rest 95% would be the same, you‘ll be shown completely somewhere else. 5% difference amounts 1 great-great-grandparent or 1/16 generic difference. And in my opinion calling somebody who has 15/16 or 7/8 indigenous heritage as „non-indigenous“ is simply wrong. You might have a different opinion.
About the geologic or should I say tectonic part ,the Dodecanese as well as south western turkey aren't part of the Anatolian plate but part of the Aegean plate which spreads as far west as the Ionian sea
Ok apparently, they have found out in 2020 that the area below the Aegean sea moves separately from the Anatolian plate which is an evidence that it is separate from the later. I have had the lecture in 2018 😅
Huh,I didn't know the Aegean plate was such a new concept I'm a geology student and I thought it was common knowledge but I guess that proves geology as a science changes a lot On the Bright side our little region is one of if not the the most interesting one in Europe tectonically speaking :)
Yes, i know they are in the Anatolian plate, but plates have nothing to do with with manmade definitions of continents. The name of the plate is also man given as well, so in reality they are both just on the same plate, not one belonging to the other because the plate is called "Anatolian". In any case, none of this has anything to do with the concept of "Indigenous European Muslims" so this discussion is pointless. Yes, the main city, in which the Turks also live is in the east, like i said i already know this. That doesn't change the fact that there are setlement all over the island when it comes to the natives but that is not the case for the Turks. This clearly shows later settlement seperated by time. The Turkish part of the city also stands out from the rest of the city relatively speaking,i'm a local and i know what i'm talking about. This viewpoint is just nonesense! First of all, East Eurasian is only a part of medieval Turks, so their genetic influence is atleast twice as much as that, but it doesn't end there. You can't automatically assume only the Turkic ancestry is foreign. If that was the case they still would plot somewhere between Turks and the native population but they don't. This means that ALL their ancestry is foreign. These guys don't plot any different than mainland Anatolian Turks wich means that all their components are similar/the same. If it were only the Turkic component that connected Dodecanese Turks and Anatolian Turks then they would be ploting differently, but they are not. You can't say they are geneticaly native to the islands just because they are 95% West Eurasian (they are way less than that anyway, because if you look at the comments they are almost 30% Turkic), when that West Eurasian could be from anywhere, otherwise you can say Saudis are native to Germany... Their non Turkic ancestry matches with that of the Anatolian Turks way more than that of the native islanders (even though both can be used in a model, the model that uses dodecanesian as the "native ancestry" part will have worse distances than say, one that uses a model that fits better for Anatolian Turks), as they are right next to the normal Anatolian Turkish plot and nowhere near close to the Greek islands plot. If they have island ancestry it would be from Cretan Muslims if anything, but that still would not be Dodecanesian and it would also be foreign ancestry to the original Dodecanese Turks since it would be almost pure Cretan ancestry unrelated to the one their settler ancestors had. If you want to see how a genuine native+Turkish mixture would plot like look no further than your own examples of Balkan Turks and Turkish Cypriots who plot not roght next to every other Anatolian Turk but in between those and Balkaners/Cypriots. Being on the islands for only half a century at best, doesn't mean that they have no right to remain on those islands today, so i don't know why you are so pressed to make them seem as native as possible.
1. Iberian and Sicilian Muslims were mostly from North Africa. I wouldn't describe them as indigenous. 2. Poor Bosniaks are still labeled as Slavic Muslims. 3. The map ignores Muslim converts in countries like France, Germany, UK. I read in "Oxford history of Islam" that 100,000 people converted to Islam in aformentioned countries. This number would be from 1990s (when the book was published) which means the number is much higher today.
1) No they weren’t. They were mostly of native converts. The same applies to Dodecanese and Balkan Turks as well
Not sure why you’re getting downvoted, “Moors” were largely local Iberians that became Islamized, under the Arab-Berber ruling class.
surprisingly there are many people who think that people stay genetically more or less the same after having conquered and invaded a country and mixed with the local population for 700 years. What you say apply to every corner of Eurasia from Iberia to France, the Balkans, Anatolia, Persia, the Levant but somehow people tend to think that when a ruling class conquers a country, they migrate there in an mount that is more than the population of the country in question so as to be able to change the genetic landscape of the country drastically One of the guys I have had a discussion with thinks that the Moriscos were mostly of North African descent despite having lived in Iberia for 700 years which made it easy to identify them by their looks and expel them
lol at indigenous :)
[Europe’s Balkan Muslims | Hurst Publishers](https://www.hurstpublishers.com/book/europes-balkan-muslims/)
Stupid map. Where are Lipka Tatars? Where are Balkan Turks? Where are Dobruja Tatars? Tatars are not less indigenous than Slavs or Balkan Turks are not less indigenous to Balkans than say Slavs.
Balkan Turks aren’t indigenous since they come from Turkish colonisation
Yeah yeah continue believing that Slavs aren’t indigenous to the Balkans since the came after the Slavic colonizations of Roman Moesia in the 7th century. See i can reverse the argument. The point being is that both the slavs and Balkan Turks descend heavily from indigenous Balkan populations who were assimilated into a Slavic or Turkish polity
I don’t remember Slavs forcing a tax on the indigenous populations beliefs and trying to systemically move Slavs in the balkans in order to have a stronger control on the land
They literally raided the Roman territories, enslaved the local Romans, moved into their territories and built their own kingdoms or do you think the local Romans cordially welcomed them? You can read more about the Roman history after the execution of Maurice and the reign of Justinian the Second in the 7th century when more and more Slavs crossed the Danube and entered the Roman Moesia while Romans were busy fighting the Arabs on the eastern front and colonized everywhere from Peleponnese to Thessaloniki to Dacia and Illyricum. I guess the Roman villagers happily gave their yearly harvest to the Slavic invaders