>Be archipelago so close to the continent you can see the isles from there
>Occupied by weak neolithic-tier tribes
>Continental neighborood never tries to occupy/civilize them. Islanders remain neolithic unga boongans until spaniards came
How it is even possible? The Canaries are so close to North Africa that at least frequent trade and interaction with the continentals should had been easy. Instead, their society was so primitive, everything is point out they basically remained isolated for millenials. Fricking Easter Isle natives were more advanced and had more interaction with other civilizations, despite occupying a lonely isle in the middle of the Pacific
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Where do you think the Canary islanders came from moron
The natives came there in the neolithic age. But apparently nobody else moved in the isles between their arrival and the spaniards, or else by cultural contact alone they would had evolved over their caveman-tier society.
How it's possible? They are like few kilometers away from the continent
They arrives in the iron age as berber stone age slaves from the phonecians
>slaves
You made that up, there isn't any text about the settlement of the canaries the only thing that is known (because of genetics) is that they were berbers and settled about 2000-3000 years ago
>in the neolithic age
*BEEP Wrong, the oldest remains there are from the 4th century bc or so, which is late iron age, but most sites are later, when Juba visited them they found them NOT inhabited, so the actual ancestors of the Guanches the Europeans encountered came likely even later.
>Juba visited them they found them NOT inhabited
he didn't visited all of them nor do we know the extent of such explorations.
Oldest traces of human presence are from the Xth century B.C. :
>"The time at which the first humans settled in the Canary Islands can be established based on the only reliable data available, a wide series of C14 dating that allow us to place the existence of stable settlements on the island of Lanzarote (Teguise) in the 10th century B.C.E. and on the island of Tenerife (Icod) in the 9th century. These high chronologies have in turn been corroborated by several dates obtained by thermoluminescence on pottery fragments modeled on a potter's wheel recovered in the coastal cordon of La Graciosa. Therefore, the evidence points to a more than probable proximity to the 10th century B.C.E. as the upper limit for the beginning of human settlement in the Canary Islands."
That’s
1 still not the neolithic
2 very unreliable and not corroborated by anything.
They were populated in the classical era, first by Numidians under heavy Roman influence then by connection to the Roman trade network.
It was perfectly possible for a civilization with a sailing tradition to reach them, yet there is basically zero evidence of contact between the islands and nearby Muslims. You are probably from r*ddit so you might not be aware the Muslims invaded and spread their religion pretty much everywhere they could. So this is very unusual.
The evidence certainly points towards them being deficient in some way, the same with the curious failure of Africans to cross to Madagascar, but of course any such suggestion is censored in academia.
Africans absolutely crossed the Mozambique strait, just after the arrival of austronesian
So they caught a ride.
There's one bit of evidence: al-Idrisi
http://islamport.com/w/bld/Web/458/176.htm
The Mugharrarun from mediaeval Lishbuna - Islamic at the time - got as far as the Sargasso Sea before chickening out and coming back east. But they miscalculated and hit islands further south than they wanted. The people there spoke a recognisably "Berber" dialect, recognisable to Lishbunatis anyway, which means Rif aka Tamazight.
>The evidence certainly points towards them being deficient
Why? You realize the Moroccans explored West Africa, spread Islam and conquered much of it way before Europeans did despite that being much more difficult than reaching the Canaries? Real Life isn't a video game, civilizations don't need to explore places just because its close to them. Japan never conquered Hokkaido until the 19th century for example, it was just some barren island that was hardly inhabited
>Nooo not the heckin homierinos!!
>low effort shitpost
My beloved nobody, Hokkaido was settled way before the 19th century despite being way harder to reach than the Canaries
And the Canary Islands weren't settled before?
>despite being way harder to reach than the Canaries
Its literally a stone toss away from Honshu
Hokkaido was settled thousands of years before the Canaries despite its hostile climate
Because Hokkaido was extremely easy to get to. The winds near the Canaries were treacherous as frick, until volta do mar, sailing near the African coast was difficult
Ainus had boats they used to trade with Korea, Japan, China and Siberia
Guanches were so primitive they weren’t even aware of the Guanches living in other islands than their own , Ainu had iron swords, Guanches were stuck in the stone age without even bows or wheels
>You are probably from r*ddit so you might not be aware the Muslims invaded and spread their religion pretty much everywhere they could. So this is very unusual.
You're an idiot, the ummeyyads didn't even want non-arabs to convert to Islam and forced conversions have always been an exception and never happened right after an invasion.
Converting new populations to Islam have never been the reason of any invasion.
Reddit spacing + reddit tier moronic opinion, checks out
I'm correct and that's not what reddit spacing is, stop trying to fit in that hard
Is this an ocean currents question?
Similar issue goes for Madagascar, whose first inhabitants were - strangely - Austronesian (i.e. Indonesian archipelago), not East Africans.
This is what i tought at first. But they are so close to the coast you can probably reach them anyway with good rowers. And if primitives managed to reach the isles, surely ships from antiquity/middle ages should had been able to do the same
Even if that the case, why numidians, romans, arabs, moors and so on never occupied or even interacted with them?
>moors and so on never occupied or even interacted with them?
they actually did :
>In this era, a second wave of immigration to the Canary Islands took place. Berber people who were accustomed to Roman culture and script brought a second type of inscriptions to the islands which differ from the archaic ones in three points: they are carved or scratched, they prefer angular variants, and they occur often in a context of Latin cursive inscriptions (Fig. 7). [...] As it was already demonstrated in the 1990s, this special type of cursive script, which is typical for the border territories of the Roman Empire, can be dated to the time of about Jesus Christ's birth (Pichler 1994, 1995). This is exactly the time of the colonies of Augustus in Morocco (e.g., Tingis, Lixus, Zilis,: 27 BC–14 BC) and of the Mauretanian king Juba II (25 BC–AD 23) with his crimson manufactories at Mogador and probably also in the Canary Islands. Among the Latino–Canary lines, we can find personal names which are wellknown from North African inscriptions (Fig. 8): ANIBAL HANIBAL NUFEL NUBEL/NUVEL The preferred destination of this wave of immigration was the eastern islands Lanzarote and Fuerteventura, where the classic type of script is the only one. Occasional examples seem to exist on Gran Canaria, Tenerife, and El Hierro as well."
The king Juba 2 (numidian) went on their island and actually gave it its name
Seems like sub saharians cant into seafaring i guess? They even sucks at swimming.
East Africans are good sailors (Swahilis, Somalis) but West Africa couldn't do much however since the Atlantic has terrible currents
>East Africans are good sailors
Reminder Madagascar was first discovered by Polynesians instead of Africans living next door
Controversial and debatable.
Colonise it from there? It's quite literally deserted. People are not evenly spread acrosa maps, it was colonised by the closest people with some established activity.
What desert-cliffs-with-no-natural-harbors people were you expecting there?
nooo you can’t just use facts and logic berber muslim borgs were supposed to sail the entire ocean looking for moronic specks of nothing to paint their colors on
Similar case with Príncipe, a couple of small islands like 200km away from the coast in gulf of guinea. Uninhabited until the portugese in 15th century.
Dude. Read guns germs and steel.
Debunked by colonists taming zaebras
So they eventually reverted back to stone age after centuries of isolation? At this point the theory that the first colonists came from an accidental shipwrecking may have a sense
Didnt a roman age traveler also reported supposed half sunk pyramids around the isles?
No, but Juba reported seeing some abandoned ruins
>colonists taming zaebras
Taming isn't the same as domestication, you fricking moron. Lions can be domesticated.
>Tame = domesticated
You're a moron, that's like asking why Native Americans didn't domesticate Raccoons. Yes they're like cats, yes they're social, no they do not make good pets.
Elephants are "tamed" rather than domesticated, yet Indians have been using them for millenia.
Yes, and they were also incredibly dangerous, unreliable, shitty animals
>Yes they're like cats, yes they're social, no they do not make good pets.
They would if they were domesticated
Taming == domesticating
You can tame anything with enough time, its simply a Pavlov scenario. Domesticating means changing the animal genetically, and is pretty much only feasible with animals that are already very social.
And how do you think those genetic changes happen? many generations of taming and selectively breeding. Wild horses were just as wild and dangerous as zebras.
Why would you tame zebras when Africans already had horses, donkeys and camels?
>Africans had no chance to become technologically advanced because they lacked a domesticated equine
Why not use the zebra?
>It can't be domesticated because they behave differently from domesticated horses.
You have no evidence that wild horses were any different from wild zebra.
>Why domesticate the zebra when horses were available?
So why bring up equines as a reason Africans were not advanced?
Who are you quoting? I'm saying there is no reason for Africans to domesticate Zebras when they had other beasts burden available. Not even Arabs living in Africa bothered to do so.
>Who are you quoting?
Environmental determinists
The zebra/horse debate comes from environmental determinist literature claiming that Africans lacked a domesticated equine and that zebra were unsuitable for the role.
If you believe that horses from Europe were brought into Africa and they were sufficient to fill the role that they played in Europe and Asia and that no advantage or disadvantage between Africa and Europe exist based on the animal, then fine, but the majority of people that chime into the debate do so to champion their determinist worldview.
>that zebra were unsuitable for the role.
Who knows if they were? No one has domesticated them
>If you believe that horses from Europe
They came from North Africa/Middle East
>do so to champion their determinist worldview.
Don't really care about that but I dislike Zebra domestication threads here because some use it as an excuse to shitpost about Africans
>Who knows if they were? No one has domesticated them
Burden of proof is on the determinists.
>They came from North Africa/Middle East
Those regions are simply in between Africa and the region horses were domesticated north of the Black Sea, horses passed through them, but originated in Europe.
>Don't really care about that but I dislike Zebra domestication threads here because some use it as an excuse to shitpost about Africans
Blame Jared Diamond for shitposting about Europeans first.
>horses passed through them, but originated in Europe.
That was a long ass time ago, horse breeds diversified and spread outside of Europe. Its like saying all humans are African. The Arabian for example certainly isn't from Europe
>Jared Diamond for shitposting about Europeans first
Diamond is a literally who, I only ever see him get brought up here
>that are already very social.
This is bullshit. Ancestors of modern horses were no more social than zebras
By that book's logic it would be harder for somebody from Spain to reach (or rather inhabit) Canary than for somebody from southern Morocco because muh latitude and longitude and muh crops.
they're scared of da water and sheeeitttttt
Guanches speak Berber so they obviously did at a point. As for Morocco not conquering them they had other priorities (Spain, mostly, but sometimes intra-Islamic fighting as well)
Morocco also destroyed the Songhai empire that existed in west africa during this time period through a conquistador style invasion where they went in with a couple guns and destroyed entire imperial armies but was not able to capitalize on it due to internal instability.
>conquistador style
Diseases didn't play a role
They had Berber-ish names, but we really dont know enough about their language to be sure. It's also possible it was a language that descendant from the afroasiatic branch, so more like of a close cousin of the berber sub-branch, rather than a direct derivation of it
Guanches were genetically identical to modern North Africans moron.
So it was "colonized".
Yea but still apparently nobody else bothered to move in the Isles for almost 2000 years, between the Guache's arrivato and the Spanish colonization
How is this possible? The eastermost Island is easily visible from Africa
Guanches were Nordics. That's why they were stuck in the stone age.
Nordics had advanced metallurgy and sailing
I personally think the colonization of the islands is more interesting than anything else concerning them, before or after it.
low iq
only correct answer ITT unironically
High iq enough to invade Spain 4 times but but the canaries?
Spain is like 1 km from Morocco -_-‘ it takes very little navigational skills to cross the strait
What does that say about europeans to have lost 4 time in a row against "low iq" people?
Spain isn't particularly high IQ European nation
There was nothing of value there
Plenty of wood for ship building and other uses, plenty of arable land, cope Mr. Mahmoud
Muslims had plenty of wood for ships and Africa also had plenty of arable land too. Canaries were just hard to reach shitholes with no strategic advantage
>before 14th century
>no real transatlantic ships
>no value at all in thr canary islands
>after 14th century
>spain and portugal have transatlantic ships
>they reach for colonies in africa, spain gets the canary islands, portugal gets azores
It's no mystery
The canary were settled by berbers during antiquity.
In the middle age berbers navigators had contact with the canary and sometime captured slaves there but they never bothered to invade. The reason is probably that they already had plenty to do with fighting against europeans, raiding subsaharan africans and having civil wars among themselves. Why bother with a small population on a small island that isn't a menace and doesn't have any precious resources?
>In the middle age berbers navigators had contact with the canary and sometime captured slaves there but they never bothered to invade.
Unsubstantiated by either archaeological or textual evidence, leave this board please, you lying clown, bye.
Yes it is, read Ibn Khaldun
they left them alone, because the money and value was not nearby it was eastwardly aim, like india area was the dream, they wanted to sail in the east and in the trade / gold value was not even nearby to be interesting prospect some-how. that is a VERY good question though, there must've been other distractions for those with sailing ideas to have had ignored this chain of islands for so long.
literally same mentality that explains why they stick to their respective blocks in inner cities.