PDA

View Full Version : The myth of Arabization



Alanson
02-09-2014, 04:14 AM
The myth of Arabization is quite a common myth that creates revisionist history, and even tries to limit Arabization to Islamization, when this completely not true. The truth is Arabization pre-dates Islam like 400 years or even more in some cases especially in the area of the Syrian Desert and Jordan. Arabization is hard to define, but it certainly occurred more so in North Africa than it did in the Syrian Desert and Iraq, and especially Southern Iraq.

Let's examine Southern Iraq historically. This region became inhabited by the Lakhmid Arabs. Who were the Lakhmid Arabs, they were an Arab tribe from Yemen who migrated to the region and becoming the rulers, as well other Arabian tribes joined in. They created the magnificent city of Al-Hira which is now known by it's Islamic name Kufa. The Lakhmids became part of the Persian Sassanid empire. The Lakhmids embraced Christianity, and well quite few of their population adhered to Arabian Goddess cults and Zoroastrianism.

Moving to Jordan and Southern Syria, this region has been Arab inhabited before the classical age. Two important large tribal Arabian confederations have settled that is the Kedarites and Midianites. The Arabian origin and most importantly Bedouin background is given in the bible. The Nabateans a north Arabian tribe migrating from Central Arabia into Jordan and creating the impressive civilization of Petra. Who were the Nabateans an Arabian tribe that spoke Arabic. Why the shift to Aramaic, and eventually creating their own unique dialect. The reason because it was lingua franca. We can also find the Arabian origins in the bible confirmed.

Migration of the Ghassanid tribal confederation into the Levant reducing the Nabateans into vassals. Ghassanids adopt Christianity and rule on behalf of the Byzantines to the dismay of the pagan nomadic Bedouin Arabs. Ghassanids were an Arabian tribal confederation themselves.

As for Iraq, Arabian migration never ended. However both the Mongol and Timurid invasions seem to have left a gap in Iraq. This when Arabian Bedouin tribes start migrating in Iraq and settling in the region. These Bedouin tribes are well established and their ties to Arabia is quite recent, and some even maintain this relationship to this day.

Now looking at the genetics of Jordanians, Southern Syrians, and Iraqi Arabs we find they are all the same people and have the same linkage to that of the Arabians of Arabia. This indicate to us Arabization is nothing more than wishful nonsense who want to deny the Arabian ancestry and they often also exaggerate the SSA admixture found Arabia for their malicious intent.

So to call modern Iraqi Arabs especially those who belong to the large Shammar, Anizah, Rawallah, Bani Tamim, and Al-Muntafaq to be non-Arabs or Arabized they will give you a laugh. This is also true of Southern Syria and Jordan. Just tell a Huwaytat, Attayah, or Bani Shacker Jordanian the response would be the same.

Alanson
02-09-2014, 04:39 AM
Important map of Lakhmid and Ghassanid areas

http://s29.postimg.org/fgldg2zt3/arabia_pre_islam.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Arabian tribes in Iraq

http://s7.postimg.org/jj22z0d4b/tribalmap525a.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

http://s23.postimg.org/sq9cypzvf/legend.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Note:Shammar Toga is clan of the Shammar tribe they are called Southern clans, well the Shammar in the north are called Northern clans belonging to the Abada/Jebali and Al-Jarba clan. As you can see the Bedouin tribes in this region are quite the majority, and all trace back to Arabia. So much for Arabization.

Humanist
02-09-2014, 05:08 AM
So to call modern Iraqi Arabs especially those who belong to the large Shammar, Anizah, Rawallah, Bani Tamim, and Al-Muntafaq to be non-Arabs or Arabized they will give you a laugh. This is also true of Southern Syria and Jordan. Just tell a Huwaytat, Attayah, or Bani Shacker Jordanian the response would be the same.


Note:Shammar Toga is clan of the Shammar tribe they are called Southern clans, well the Shammar in the north are called Northern clans belonging to the Abada/Jebali and Al-Jarba clan. As you can see the Bedouin tribes in this region are quite the majority, and all trace back to Arabia. So much for Arabization.

Who is questioning the Arabian character of the above groups?

ZephyrousMandaru
02-09-2014, 05:21 AM
I don't think Arabization is myth, but it certainly doesn't apply to all Arabs, not even those in the Levant. However, there are Arabs, especially those in the Northern and Central parts of Iraq that are genetically indistinguishable from Assyrians. There are some Arabs from Baghdad for example, that cluster closely to Assyrians. The same applies to a lesser extent to some Syrians and Lebanese people especially the Christian populations.

Euro_Test_K8 results for an Assyrian (me) and an Iraqi Arab from Baghdad.

Me

Maritime Neolithic 36.7%
North European hunter gatherer + (Neolithic admixture) 2.8%
Anatolian Neolithic 53.6%
Sub-Saharan Africa 0%
North Eurasian 0%
East African 4.5%
East Asian 0%
South Asian 2.0%

Iraqi Arab From Baghdad

Maritime Neolithic 30.18%
North European hunter gatherer + (Neolithic admixture) 5.28%
Anatolian Neolithic 47.08%
Sub-Saharan Africa 0%
North Eurasian 0%
East African 6.7%
East Asian 1.5%
South Asian 8.2%

Sein
02-09-2014, 06:18 AM
I don't think Arabization is myth, but it certainly doesn't apply to all Arabs, not even those in the Levant. However, there are Arabs, especially those in the Northern and Central parts of Iraq that are genetically indistinguishable from Assyrians. There are some Arabs from Baghdad for example, that cluster closely to Assyrians. The same applies to a lesser extent, to some Syrians and Lebanese people especially the Christian populations.

Euro_Test_K8 results for an Assyrian (me) and an Iraqi Arab from Baghdad.

Me

Maritime Neolithic 36.7%
North European hunter gatherer + (Neolithic admixture) 2.8%
Anatolian Neolithic 53.6%
Sub-Saharan Africa 0%
North Eurasian 0%
East African 4.5%
East Asian 0%
South Asian 2.0%

Iraqi Arab From Baghdad

Maritime Neolithic 30.18%
North European hunter gatherer + (Neolithic admixture) 5.28%
Anatolian Neolithic 47.08%
Sub-Saharan Africa 0%
North Eurasian 0%
East African 6.7%
East Asian 1.5%
South Asian 8.2%

Hi Zephyrous,

Is this calculator public?

ZephyrousMandaru
02-09-2014, 07:31 AM
Hi Zephyrous,

Is this calculator public?

This analysis was done back in 2012 by Davidski. Unfortunately, there are no calculator files for it.

This is the spreadsheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdGhPS3pMaTZwUUhWbTd0S0hnVkM5M 3c#gid=0

Ramza
02-09-2014, 08:49 AM
Now looking at the genetics of Jordanians, Southern Syrians, and Iraqi Arabs we find they are all the same people and have the same linkage to that of the Arabians of Arabia.

Not to be overly confrontational, but again you've regurgitated this statement without any actual genetic evidence to support it. Please share the genetic studies you're referring to that include Iraqi Arabs.

This appears to be a response (or more accurately, a reaction) to a recent and very simple question (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1091-Euphrates-demographics-change-only-with-the-Mongols&p=30257&viewfull=1#post30257) I put to you about Iraqi Arabs (twice) (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?1091-Euphrates-demographics-change-only-with-the-Mongols&p=30312&viewfull=1#post30312), which you completely ignored. Note that I did not debate the existence of Arab ancestry. I don't take issue with meaningful speculation - unless it's masqueraded as fact, which seems to be a recurring theme with your posts.

Alanson
02-10-2014, 01:24 AM
Who is questioning the Arabian character of the above groups?

Well there is a certain someone who spread misinfo about Arabians, and the people of Iraq and the Middle East in general. He speaks like it's facts I don't want to mention his name. He also ignores that Arabization did not come with Islamization, since both the Ghassanids and Lakhmids were Arab speakers, and not to mention Kedarites and Midianites who are said to be of Arab Ishamelite origins in the bible.


I don't think Arabization is myth, but it certainly doesn't apply to all Arabs, not even those in the Levant. However, there are Arabs, especially those in the Northern and Central parts of Iraq that are genetically indistinguishable from Assyrians. There are some Arabs from Baghdad for example, that cluster closely to Assyrians. The same applies to a lesser extent to some Syrians and Lebanese people especially the Christian populations.

The myth of Arabization is when one equates it with Islamization, they are two different things. There are ethnic Arab Christians for example who affirm their Bedouin identity two of these tribes live in Jordan. One of them is even named after the Hejaz called Hejazeen. An Arabian Christian is an Arabian, regardless to what religion he belongs to. Well yes it indeed Arabization has occurred, and some populations will show this. I know some people in Central and Northern Iraq will indeed be Arabized. The problem is when people seem to state falsehoods like Arabization and Islamization are the same thing well they are not. For example my mom can convert to Christianity but this does not mean she is not of Arabian background. The problem I have is that people try to diminish the historical presence of Arabians, and even exaggerate minor admixture in this process in Arabia, and yes it does anger me to no end.


Not to be overly confrontational, but again you've regurgitated this statement without any actual genetic evidence to support it. Please share the genetic studies you're referring to that include Iraqi Arabs.

This appears to be a response (or more accurately, a reaction) to a recent and very simple question I put to you about Iraqi Arabs (twice), which you completely ignored. Note that I did not debate the existence of Arab ancestry. I don't take issue with meaningful speculation - unless it's masqueraded as fact, which seems to be a recurring theme with your posts.

Well the McDonald system seems it can't really make a difference between Iraqi Arabs and ethnic Saudis, and especially Iraqi Arabs from the South. That said indeed there will be some Arabized populations in Iraq and this is to be expected. I believe that Western Iraqis to be very much the same as Southern Iraqis with slight differences. Well Iraqi Arabs from the North, Center will show various degrees of Arabization. For example I never denied you will find Arabized Persians in the shrine cities, or Assyrians in North, but I believe the vast majority of Iraqi Arabs not to be of Arabized stock and this would fit in the geographical area. In the North the Arabs who still hold tribal names and live in a Bedouin lifestyle seem to be non-Arabized.

look at this result of a Southern Iraqi Arab:


S Iraqi: The program says you are a bad fit to our Iranian comparison
population. A good fit is 87% Bedouin and the rest Sindhi.

However, the spot on the map is near Ar Rass, Saudi Arabia. Sometimes the program gets it somewhat wrong; This one is at the outside edge of a normal error distance.

The chromosome painting is typical of people from either Saudi Arabia or Iraq.

Humanist
02-10-2014, 02:46 AM
Well there is a certain someone who spread misinfo about Arabians, and the people of Iraq and the Middle East in general. He speaks like it's facts I don't want to mention his name. He also ignores that Arabization did not come with Islamization, since both the Ghassanids and Lakhmids were Arab speakers, and not to mention Kedarites and Midianites who are said to be of Arab Ishamelite origins in the bible.

OK. But, how about bringing your dispute to a forum where he is actually registered and where you have posting privileges (e.g. The Apricity)?

DMXX
02-10-2014, 03:02 AM
OK. But, how about bringing your dispute to a forum where he is actually registered and where you have posting privileges (e.g. The Apricity)?

Co-signed.

I appreciate someone is spreading misinformation regarding the Arab people and there is a perception these spurious claims need to be addressed but this forum is supposed to be for discussion. It is near-impossible to properly discuss this topic when it is directed at someone who, as I gather it, probably isn't on this forum.

For this thread to be feasible, I'd kindly advise redirecting attention to the discussion that's already been generated (as this is an interesting topic) whilst debating with this certain someone on a mutually accessible platform.

The burning question I have for Alanson is, what is the basis for your belief that the majority of Iraqi Arabs are mostly Arabian in their genetic ancestry? That isn't to say I necessarily disagree with you; is there any hard evidence indicating this?

Humanist
02-10-2014, 03:59 AM
Arabization is hard to define, but it certainly occurred more so in North Africa than it did in the Syrian Desert and Iraq, and especially Southern Iraq.

I'll be your huckleberry on this point. There was indeed an Arabian presence in what became Iraq before the advent of Islam. But, what I cannot understand is how one can argue against the well established historical fact that Mesopotamia was not always significantly "Arabic." If it was not always "Arabic," and today it is "Arabic," then logically it would follow that at some point in the past it underwent a period of "Arabization." In the 1st millennium BCE, speakers of Arabic were certainly a minority in Mesopotamia. The dominant languages were Akkadian and Aramaic.

Wikipedia


Asōristān was the name of the Sasanian provinces of Assyria and Babylonia, although the name Asorestan technically meant only Assyria which was in fact just to the north of Babylonia.[1][2]

Asōristān was largely identical with ancient Mesopotamia.[1] The borders were, in the west, the Euphrates and, in the east, a strip of land east of the Tigris.[1] The northern border probably went along a line from Harran to the Hakkari mountains.[1]

Asoristan was the capital province of the Sasanian Empire and was called Del-i Ērānshahr (lit. "The Heart of Iran") in Persian.[2] The city of Ctesiphon served as the capital of both the Parthian and Sasanian empires, and was at this time the largest city in the world.[3] The main language spoken was Eastern Aramaic, with the Syriac dialect becoming an important vehicle for Christianity.[4]

Between 633 and 638 AD, the region was invaded by the Arabs, and annexed by the Islamic Rashidun Caliphate and together with Mayshan became the province of al-'Irāq. A century later, the area became the capital province of the Abbasid Caliphate and the centre of Islamic civilization for five hundred years; from the 8th to the 13th centuries.


Wikipedia


Arabization or Arabisation describes a growing cultural influence on a non-Arab area that gradually changes into one that speaks Arabic and/or incorporates Arab culture and Arab identity.

Alanson
02-10-2014, 04:23 AM
The burning question I have for Alanson is, what is the basis for your belief that the majority of Iraqi Arabs are mostly Arabian in their genetic ancestry? That isn't to say I necessarily disagree with you; is there any hard evidence indicating this?

I believe that the Lakhmids who set up this, and they were followed by these Arabian tribes like the Quda'a who actually created the city of Samawa in modern day Southern Iraq. Genetics seem to show the vast majority of Iraqis are of Arabian background and don't differ from other Arabian descendant populations. As well the Arabian tribal migration from the 15th century to the 19th century has only added more Arabian element to the region. The only regions that seem to have Arabized minorities is the North of Iraq(non-Bedouins) and the Shrine cities. Also Iraqi Arabs overlap more with ethnic Arabians from Arabia than anyone else, and of course Jordanians, who themselves are a Bedouin descendant people. The book Shia of Iraq gives important information of the Arabian Bedouin origins of the Iraqi Arab both Sunni and Shia. For example the Bani Kaab tribe migrated from Nejd in the 15th century, well the Bani Lam in the 19th century. Not mention the appearance of the Al-Muntafaq Bedouin tribal confederation, who most Iraqi Shia Arabs belong to.

As given McDonald programs seem to show Iraqi Arabs to be similar to ethnic Saudis or Bedouins suggest that there is no such thing as Arabization and it confirms both the book, what the tribes claim, and the history post-Mongol Iraq.

Humanist
02-10-2014, 04:12 PM
As given McDonald programs seem to show Iraqi Arabs to be similar to ethnic Saudis or Bedouins suggest that there is no such thing as Arabization and it confirms both the book, what the tribes claim, and the history post-Mongol Iraq.

OK. I see. So, you are saying there can no "Arabization" because the people, by and large, inhabiting Iraq today, were Arabs to begin with? That is fine. However, do you contest the fact that what is today Iraq was not predominantly Arabic-speaking before the second half of the 1st millennium CE?

ADDENDUM: Toponyms are sometimes a good indication of population continuity/discontinuity.

Regarding C/S Iraq:


SYRIAC
māḥōz, māḥōzā [ pl. māhōzē]
English: city

[NOTE: The Syriac/Sureth plural suffix "ē" is consistent with the Assyrian variety of Akkadian]


AKKADIAN
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/mahazu12.jpg
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/mahazu3.jpg
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/mahazu4.jpg
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/mahazu5.jpg
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/mahazu6.jpg
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x372/paulgiva78/passover/mahazu7.jpg


Wikipedia


Under Alexander, Babylon again flourished as a centre of learning and commerce. But following Alexander's death in 323 BC in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar, his empire was divided amongst his generals, the Diadochi, and decades of fighting soon began, with Babylon once again caught in the middle.

The constant turmoil virtually emptied the city of Babylon. A tablet dated 275 BC states that the inhabitants of Babylon were transported to Seleucia, where a palace was built, as well as a temple given the ancient name of Esagila. With this deportation, the history of Babylon comes practically to an end, though more than a century later, it was found that sacrifices were still performed in its old sanctuary.[24] By 141 BC, when the Parthian Empire took over the region, Babylon was in complete desolation and obscurity.



Al-Mada'in ("The Cities") (Arabic: Al-Madā'in; [Syriac]: Māhōzē) is the name given to the ancient metropolis formed by Seleucia and Ctesiphon (also referred to as Seleucia-Ctesiphon) on opposite sides of the Tigris River in present-day Iraq.

ADDENDUM 2:

Wikipedia


The religious demography of Mesopotamia was very diverse during Late Antiquity. From the 1st and 2nd centuries Syriac Christianity became the primary religion, while other groups practiced Mandaeism, Judaism, Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, and the old Mesopotamian religion.[7] Christians were probably the most numerous group in the province.[7]



According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, [today] Iraq is 97% Muslim.

Alanson
02-10-2014, 07:21 PM
OK. I see. So, you are saying there can no "Arabization" because the people, by and large, inhabiting Iraq today, were Arabs to begin with? That is fine. However, do you contest the fact that what is today Iraq was not predominantly Arabic-speaking before the second half of the 1st millennium CE?

ADDENDUM: Toponyms are sometimes a good indication of population continuity/discontinuity.

Regarding C/S Iraq:




Wikipedia






ADDENDUM 2:

Wikipedia

No I don't contest the non-Arab origins of what's now Iraq because for fact that it was not Arab speaking or inhabited by Arab speakers until the waves of the Lakhmid migration which was followed by other tribes into the region nor it's religious diversity. The religious diversity of Iraq is well documented, and the Lakhmids themselves embraced Nestorian Christianity before shifting to Islam for nationalistic and political reasons. Christianity became the dominant religion long before they came, but indeed Judaism, Mandeanism, Zoroastrianism, and various pagan religions.

They probably swarmed up the region and Arabized the locals. This also explains why the Lakhmids and the Arab tribes that followed them converted to Islam. The Lakhmid kings often dreamed of Arab unity, despite their linkage to being vassals of the Persians, this relationship was quite tense.

However the great change occurred and more Arabian tribes came to the region, after the Mongol and Timuird invasions. This is really when we see the nomadic Bedouin character and the Arabian stamp upon Iraq.

Iraq is indeed today majority Muslim, and a lot of these people did not have convert ancestors but were Muslims already to begin with, especially in speaking of the Arab population of Iraq. This Arab population is divided into two main Islamic sects the Sunni and it's various rites, and the Shia and it's various rites. Now Sunnism is dominant among the Arab tribes of the Syrian Desert and Mosul mostly being of the Hanafi rite, well the nomadic tribes in the South follow the Malaki rite, and the Shia Arabs concentrated in the South belong to the Usuli rite well some belong to the Sheikhi rite(originating in Eastern Arabia).

No one can deny that Iraq was originally non-Arab, this especially true in North more so than the South. However my argument that no one can deny that Iraqi Arabs have significant Arabian ancestry and in some cases almost fully of Arabian lineage. The problem becomes revisionist history which says the Arabs migrated with the Islamic conquest in the 7th century and ignoring the Lakhmid Arabs who migrated before Islam even appeared on the scene.

Certainly there many people of Arabized stock in North of Iraq, this why many Northern Iraqis overlap with their fellow Christian Assyrians, this is not contested but a fact. Also Northern Iraqis don't differ much from the Assyrians genetically, unless they are of Bedouin stock that happens to have migrated from the South and settled in the region. Well Southern and Western Iraq seem to be of Arabian stock.

I am not hostile to the non-Arab element that's culturally,historically, and traditionally been part of what constitute it Mesopotamia both ancient and to some extent modern.

Ramza
02-11-2014, 07:00 PM
In the North the Arabs who still hold tribal names and live in a Bedouin lifestyle seem to be non-Arabized.

This doesn't reasonably indicate non-Arabization, since Arabization by definition manifests as direct cultural influence in a variety of ways. It's also odd that you flip-flop between calling Arabization a "myth" and "wishful nonsense", to accepting Arabization in varying degrees, and then later go on to state that "there is no such thing as Arabization", until finally (?) accepting Arabization again. I'm unsure whether you simply can't make your mind up (in which case this thread seems a little premature), or if you're intentionally moving the goal posts to suit a particular narrative at a given time in order to sidestep the debate.

Tribal names don't necessarily mean anything. There are two Iraqi Arabs I'm aware of on 23andMe who identify as such and descend from at least four Arab tribes between them (one different tribe per parent), but they do not plot amongst Bedouin. Does this indicate Arabization? It could. Does it reflect the larger population? No. Because again, to what extent does Arabian admixture exist in the population? That was my original question. Without substantial genetic evidence, we cannot know the answer.

The point of my initial comment was purely to gain an idea of the science behind your assertion that, "Iraqi Arabs are the descendants of Arabians, and their genetics appear to suggest they are not Arabized."

You haven't provided sufficient genetic evidence, yet you still repeat this canard as though it were incontrovertible:

Genetics seem to show the vast majority of Iraqis are of Arabian background and don't differ from other Arabian descendant populations.

[...]

Iraqi Arabs overlap more with ethnic Arabians from Arabia than anyone else

[...]

As given McDonald programs seem to show Iraqi Arabs to be similar to ethnic Saudis or Bedouins suggest that there is no such thing as Arabization

As far as I can tell, you're simply perpetuating an opinion of the entire population as fact and pointing to one result from Dr. McDonald's analyses to support it. You can provide no other genetic evidence to reinforce your claim. Perhaps we ought to highlight the three Iraqi Arab individuals from the Harappa project who don't plot among Bedouin, ignore the fourth Iraqi Arab who does, and claim the results as typical of the majority of Iraqis? It would make just as much sense (i.e. none at all).


Well the McDonald system seems it can't really make a difference between Iraqi Arabs and ethnic Saudis, and especially Iraqi Arabs from the South.

Alanson, I spoke to Dr. McDonald about this yesterday. It seems by "the McDonald system" you only mean his chromosome painting, and even that statement might not be accurate.

First, let me mention that I actually asked him if it's possible to differentiate between his chromosome painting of an Iraqi versus that of Saudis, Bedouin, Iranians, Palestinians, etc.
His response:


yes ... ON AVERAGE, but I don’t have a enough experience to say how ...
It could be done from the data I have. They would look similar,
just different ratios of Mideast, Europe, and S. Asia.

Second, humor me. Here are some simple questions for you:

1. - How long ago did he analyze the Southern Iraqi Arab's data? I have a feeling that it's been quite a while, at a time when Dr. McDonald's database was lacking (more than it is now, at least) in Iraqi results to compare with.

2. - Where exactly, in your opinion, would the typical Iraqi be found on the following PCA plot?*

1389


*(Kindly provided by Dr. McDonald yesterday. I've removed the crosshair; it's another individual's results, so I didn't think it wise to post unedited.)

Alanson
02-14-2014, 08:07 AM
This doesn't reasonably indicate non-Arabization, since Arabization by definition manifests as direct cultural influence in a variety of ways. It's also odd that you flip-flop between calling Arabization a "myth" and "wishful nonsense", to accepting Arabization in varying degrees, and then later go on to state that "there is no such thing as Arabization", until finally (?) accepting Arabization again. I'm unsure whether you simply can't make your mind up (in which case this thread seems a little premature), or if you're intentionally moving the goal posts to suit a particular narrative at a given time in order to sidestep the debate.

The truth and fact of the matter there is stages like in every place. Some regions will change throughout time, as their origins and identification as well. Iraq for example was not Arab and was not even Aramaic speaker, until much later. Then it became Arab speaker with the coming of the Lakhmids and many of related Arabian tribes, with good number of people also being Persian speakers. After the Mongol and Timurid invasions, the land became deserted and Bedouin tribes like Al-Muntafaq appeared, what happened to the others, according to the Arab chronicles they escaped to Egypt and Syria. Iraq's whole structure changed as result it became a strong Bedouin hold. The Bedouin tribes only settled recently and that's when they adopted Shiaism. Those that got concentrated in the West kept their nomadic lifestyle and kept their Sunni faith. The nomadic Bedouins in the South for example are still Sunni following the Malaki rite.


Tribal names don't necessarily mean anything. There are two Iraqi Arabs I'm aware of on 23andMe who identify as such and descend from at least four Arab tribes between them (one different tribe per parent), but they do not plot amongst Bedouin. Does this indicate Arabization? It could. Does it reflect the larger population? No. Because again, to what extent does Arabian admixture exist in the population? That was my original question. Without substantial genetic evidence, we cannot know the answer.

Tribal names are quite important because they indicate the person's roots. If the tribe for example is said to originate in Arabia, and still has clans there that means they are still linked, they clearly have roots from there. Now that said, there is indeed some Arabized people in Iraq. Iraq also had an important Persian migration during those times, especially when they adopted the Shia sect. Many of these Persians came and settled in Baghdad which is a cosmopolitan area, and of course the holy sites of Karbala and Najaf. These people eventually got Arabized. Well in the north many of the Assyrian Christians converted to Islam and got Arabized, you see this Arabization in the center and north, based on history and geography this makes sense. Well in the other regions Arabization is quite limited. If people are clustering with Jordanians who are basically Arabians, there is no doubt there is significant Arabian admixture, although I would not say admixture but rather ancestry in Iraq especially the West and South and less so in the Center and North.

The point of my initial comment was purely to gain an idea of the science behind your assertion that, "Iraqi Arabs are the descendants of Arabians, and their genetics appear to suggest they are not Arabized."


You haven't provided sufficient genetic evidence, yet you still repeat this canard as though it were incontrovertible:


As far as I can tell, you're simply perpetuating an opinion of the entire population as fact and pointing to one result from Dr. McDonald's analyses to support it. You can provide no other genetic evidence to reinforce your claim. Perhaps we ought to highlight the three Iraqi Arab individuals from the Harappa project who don't plot among Bedouin, ignore the fourth Iraqi Arab who does, and claim the results as typical of the majority of Iraqis? It would make just as much sense (i.e. none at all).

Like I have said this depends on the region and where these Iraqi Arabs are from. The South and West are quite Arabian. I will give you an example a Western Iraq plots with Jordanians who are a Bedouin grouping themselves, well the Southern Iraqi will plot with an ethnic Saudi. Now ethnic Jordanians and ethnic Saudis are very genetically similar to each other hence the cluster together. The other Iraqi Arabs can come from the center which has Arabized Kurds, Arabized Persians, Arabized Assyrians, and of course Bedouin Arabs who have intermixed with them.

The Iraqi Arab who plots with the Bedouins is himself Southern Iraqi which makes sense based on geography, the history and what the tribes themselves claim.




Alanson, I spoke to Dr. McDonald about this yesterday. It seems by "the McDonald system" you only mean his chromosome painting, and even that statement might not be accurate.

Well his program seems to plot Southern Iraqis with Saudis(ethnic) or with Bedouins and those of Western origins with Jordanians.


First, let me mention that I actually asked him if it's possible to differentiate between his chromosome painting of an Iraqi versus that of Saudis, Bedouin, Iranians, Palestinians, etc.

That's because they share similar ancestry with each other, that said the Iranians are little bit different and the same is true of Turks. However I do agree there needs to be more samples but the conclusion based on the Southern Iraqis and Western Iraqis only confirms that Arabization was limited to certain regions and not to the majority of the population.


How long ago did he analyze the Southern Iraqi Arab's data? I have a feeling that it's been quite a while, at a time when Dr. McDonald's database was lacking (more than it is now, at least) in Iraqi results to compare with.

To be honest I have no idea, but the Southern Iraqi fellah does come from a Bedouin tribe.


Where exactly, in your opinion, would the typical Iraqi be found on the following PCA plot?*

I do believe that question is hard to answer in definitive way the major reason to this, because there is high regional diversity in Iraq. As I have stated not all ethnic groups in Iraq will match each other, or they are Arabized. However since many Iraqis are from the center they will show an Arabized Assyrian like ancestry, and some will show Arabized Iranian ancestry or in between of those. Others will plot with Jordanians and Bedouins.

Ramza
02-14-2014, 09:05 AM
LOL I can't believe your wall of anecdotes and circumstantial evidence received a "thanks".


If people are clustering with Jordanians who are basically Arabians, there is no doubt there is significant Arabian admixture

This again. People indicates a number of examples. You haven't seen or provided a number of examples, despite having ample opportunity to present evidence.

Still no science. Still skirting around the subject and posting opinions masquerading as fact.

I'm out. Enjoy the weird tribal treatises, everyone.

DMXX
02-14-2014, 09:20 AM
LOL I can't believe your wall of anecdotes and circumstantial evidence received a "thanks".

This again. People indicates a number of examples. You haven't seen or provided a number of examples, despite having ample opportunity to present evidence.

Still no science. Still skirting around the subject and posting opinions masquerading as fact.

I'm out. Enjoy the weird tribal treatises, everyone.

Amidst the other content in his post, Alanson made several statements regarding the general genetic picture in the Middle-East which is correct (e.g. Iranians and Turks being somewhat "different" from other Middle-Easterners). Those sorts of statements were what garnered a "thanks" from me.

As for the empirical genetic evidence, he doesn't have any. None of us do. I understand the perspective you're approaching this topic with Ramza, but the truth of the matter is no autosomal data has surfaced out of Iraq just yet. The best anyone has to go by is the McDonald plots of a handful, which should be carefully interpreted with respect to the country's demographic divisions and regional histories. As Humanist alluded to, some Iraqi Arabs from certain parts of the country are likely to resemble modern Assyrians exceptionally well. We even have an example or two of this.

Having said this, Alanson is certainly wrong in asserting this view as fact given the paucity of data. Isn't his fault the data isn't there, but the wording of that view makes it completely reliant on special pleading. Circumstantial evidence in the form of tribal origins etc. are indicative but not definitive, which I believe is the main dispute here.

Ramza
02-14-2014, 10:06 AM
Amidst the other content in his post, Alanson made several statements regarding the general genetic picture in the Middle-East which is correct (e.g. Iranians and Turks being somewhat "different" from other Middle-Easterners). Those sorts of statements were what garnered a "thanks" from me.

As for the empirical genetic evidence, he doesn't have any. None of us do. I understand the perspective you're approaching this topic with Ramza, but the truth of the matter is no autosomal data has surfaced out of Iraq just yet. The best anyone has to go by is the McDonald plots of a handful, which should be carefully interpreted with respect to the country's demographic divisions and regional histories. As Humanist alluded to, some Iraqi Arabs from certain parts of the country are likely to resemble modern Assyrians exceptionally well. We even have an example or two of this.

Having said this, Alanson is certainly wrong in asserting this view as fact given the paucity of data. Isn't his fault the data isn't there, but the wording of that view makes it completely reliant on special pleading. Circumstantial evidence in the form of tribal origins etc. are indicative but not definitive, which I believe is the main dispute here.

I'm sure Alanson's aware of what he's posting. Even when punctuated with meaningful information, intellectual dishonesty shouldn't garner encouragement in the form of thanks as though it were a reward for pulling the wool over people's eyes. It seems to run counter to what is being said here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2179-How-to-make-this-forum-more-active&p=31134). But I respect your opinion and I appreciate that we'll see this from different perspectives, so I'll leave it at that.

Alanson
02-14-2014, 10:09 AM
^ What I am doing is really basing it on history, culture, and why Iraq was really nomadic until recently. There seems to be gap if you will. From settled to nomadic society it does not make sense, but rather it seems the Mongol and Timurid invasions played a large role. As I have stated I believe their is difference in the north, center, west and south of the region. Of course I am not saying all of them are going to be this way, but I have no doubt in my mind what I have stated would be reflective as it will indicate what the historians and various anthropologists have said. I am not hostile to the non-Arab origins of Iraq, and especially it's Mesopotamian Assyro-Babylonian roots, I think people misunderstand me when I am saying that there was no Arabization of certain groups well there is for others. There is a Western Iraqi individual who I actually share with and is my 23andme cousin and he plots with Jordanians, and this Southern Iraqi Arab fellah plots with Bedouins and ethnic Saudis, now I do realize two people is not reflective but there seems to be trend and pattern of this.

DMXX
02-14-2014, 10:18 AM
... intellectual dishonesty shouldn't garner encouragement in the form of thanks as though it were a reward for pulling the wool over people's eyes.

This is generally true regarding the usual use of the "thanks" option. Although I hope you'll also note both Humanist and myself have actively questioned this assertion in this very thread (particularly in the post of mine you've cited). There is a dialogue which accompanies those "thanks" in this case.

As far as opinions go, I simultaneously agree with you, Humanist and Alanson on several points. Iraq's history is simply far too turbulent for blanket assertions to be made, but we do have a couple of BGA plots indicating the Iraqi Arab population has, at the very least, a strong Arabian (Iraqi Arab plotting on Saudi-Iraq border) and pre-Arabian ancient (Iraqi Arab pairing well with modern Assyrians) component. Many Iraqi Arabs do actually have a real and recent connection with the Arabian peninsula, especially if there is indication of tribal origin. Alanson's own Shammari clan originated in the northern Arabian peninsula and were once rulers of that land prior to the Saudis capturing it barely 150 years ago.

Given the scant nature of genetic data on Iraqi Arab autosomes, we'll probably have to hold off the discussion until more data arrives with an appreciation of the diversity that exists in that country, making blanket assertions of any kind fairly unrealistic.

Alanson
02-17-2014, 04:57 AM
I'm sure Alanson's aware of what he's posting. Even when punctuated with meaningful information, intellectual dishonesty shouldn't garner encouragement in the form of thanks as though it were a reward for pulling the wool over people's eyes. It seems to run counter to what is being said here (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?2179-How-to-make-this-forum-more-active&p=31134). But I respect your opinion and I appreciate that we'll see this from different perspectives, so I'll leave it at that.

What is your agenda to prove Iraqi Arabs are Arabized? Are you Iraqi yourself. There is also another theory that people have put forward that Iraqis are Arabized Persians but this is true to only certain people and certain regions. Iraqis don't share much with Iranic people genetically, but yes there is certain cultural elements but they are intermixed with Arabian as well.

So the people who wrote this are also intellectually dishonest.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/163698?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103404083491

http://s13.postimg.org/hfqx4p9o7/k5502.gif (http://postimage.org/)

or this From Mesopotamia to Iraq: A Concise History (http://www.amazon.com/From-Mesopotamia-Iraq-Concise-History/dp/0226586642)[/COLOR][/I][/B]
Hans J. Nissen, Peter Heine (2009)

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/iraq_mongol-1.jpg

I am just basing my words on history and what the tribes themselves claim, and there seem to be genetic evidence for it to be frank, especially post-Mongol Iraq.

Ramza
02-17-2014, 05:28 PM
I am just basing my words on history and what the tribes themselves claim, and there seem to be genetic evidence for it to be frank

I kindly ask you to not troll me, and please don't feign ignorance, or play the victim, or pretend that an agenda exists just because you were caught short when asked to share the science behind your assertions.

My interest is solely based on what genetics can show us; it has nothing to do with interpreting history, and you should be well aware of that by now. I could not have articulated my point more clearly than I already have (multiple times).

Re-read my posts if, for some unfathomable reason, you somehow still don't understand.

Alanson
02-20-2014, 05:15 AM
I kindly ask you to not troll me, and please don't feign ignorance, or play the victim, or pretend that an agenda exists just because you were caught short when asked to share the science behind your assertions.

My interest is solely based on what genetics can show us; it has nothing to do with interpreting history, and you should be well aware of that by now. I could not have articulated my point more clearly than I already have (multiple times).

Re-read my posts if, for some unfathomable reason, you somehow still don't understand.

I am no trolling you or anything. I just asked if you are an Iraqi Arab or not. Since many people do have agenda's to show Iraq as something that it is not. I do agree like plenty of times and said that there was Arabization of certain regions an places, well others did not go through this process. This process that we see more in North Africa who barely share anything with Arabians, and just linguistic relationship. For example take Tunisians. Tunisians identify as Arabs but they are for Arabized Berbers. Well Iraqi Arabs are an Arabian subset population, and this is true with Jordanians as well. Which means that these two latter groups are not Arabized. Not many people claim Jordanians are Arabized, but everyone is claiming Iraqis are. Going back I already provided some genetic evidence, and writings of scholars of this region.

DMXX
02-22-2014, 09:39 PM
Somewhat relevant to the discussion and tying in with my earlier comments regarding Iraq being (at least) dominated by an Arabian and Assyrian ethnic component.

Palisto's KurdishDNA blog (http://kurdishdna.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/autosomal-dna-from-iraq.html) features some results from Iraq. Granted, the majority of samples are Kurdish, but other Iraqi groups are also compared. MfA also contributed to the entry. Please note this comment:



The South Iraqi is an outlier in the data set suggesting very recent migration into Iraq. The South Iraqi individual clusters with Bedouins. More than 10% of his ancestry is African.


Baghdadi1 looks rather Assyrian, as does Baghdadi2, although the latter is slightly closer to the South Iraqi than Baghdadi1 and also has some North Euro, which Palisto also picked up. Not indicative of anything specific, but does lend some transient support to the above notion, for now.

Special thanks to ZephyrousMandaru for bringing this to my attention.

Humanist
02-22-2014, 10:34 PM
This Neighbor-joining tree was posted a few weeks back in the Harappa thread. Three of the four Iraqi Arab participants can be found in this part of the tree.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/harappa_nj.jpg

Alanson
02-23-2014, 05:41 AM
This Neighbor-joining tree was posted a few weeks back in the Harappa thread. Three of the four Iraqi Arab participants can be found in this part of the tree.

http://i1096.photobucket.com/albums/g326/dok101/Faces/harappa_nj.jpg

This is very interesting map, especially the Turkish Alevi an how is close to the Iraqi Arab and and with the Kurdish-Kurmanji this lends to the theory that many Alevis are actually of Turkized Iranic in origins. What is more interesting is that the Iraqi Arab is quite close to him Persian ancestry perhaps? Also I would like this explained so I can understand the connection.

Tomasso29
02-25-2014, 09:12 PM
I am no trolling you or anything. I just asked if you are an Iraqi Arab or not. Since many people do have agenda's to show Iraq as something that it is not. I do agree like plenty of times and said that there was Arabization of certain regions an places, well others did not go through this process. This process that we see more in North Africa who barely share anything with Arabians, and just linguistic relationship. For example take Tunisians. Tunisians identify as Arabs but they are for Arabized Berbers. Well Iraqi Arabs are an Arabian subset population, and this is true with Jordanians as well. Which means that these two latter groups are not Arabized. Not many people claim Jordanians are Arabized, but everyone is claiming Iraqis are. Going back I already provided some genetic evidence, and writings of scholars of this region.

It's true that Iraqi Arabs do have a deep history of Arab migration during the expansion of Islam. But it's also important to mention that as they migrated, they also mixed with the local populations.

Alanson
03-02-2014, 04:22 AM
It's true that Iraqi Arabs do have a deep history of Arab migration during the expansion of Islam. But it's also important to mention that as they migrated, they also mixed with the local populations.

That is indeed true. It seems that the more Central-North you go the people seem to be more Mesopotamian, well the more South the people seem to be more Bedouin like. However I believe the Arab migration to Iraq have long been before the rise of Islam. These Arabian tribes that settled in Iraq like the Lakhmids, Qudah, Tanukh, and several others. Then after the Mongol and Timurid conquest more Arabian tribes came to the region. I don't think Islamization and Arabization or Arabization and Islamization are the same, sure their connected to degree but they are quite different as well.

Humanist
03-02-2014, 07:34 PM
That is indeed true. It seems that the more Central-North you go the people seem to be more Mesopotamian, well the more South the people seem to be more Bedouin like. However I believe the Arab migration to Iraq have long been before the rise of Islam. These Arabian tribes that settled in Iraq like the Lakhmids, Qudah, Tanukh, and several others. Then after the Mongol and Timurid conquest more Arabian tribes came to the region. I don't think Islamization and Arabization or Arabization and Islamization are the same, sure their connected to degree but they are quite different as well.

Arabic names in Assyrian records from the 1st millennium BCE do exist, however, they appear to represent a minority, as do non-Semitic names, including those of Egyptian, Iranian, Hurrian, Elamite, Urartian, Anatolian, and Greek origin.


Numerous languages are represented in the Neo-Assyrian onomastic material. While the majority of the names are Akkadian (Assyrian and Babylonian), names from other Semitic languages represent another large part of the onomasticon: the Northwest Semitic names, i.e. Aramaic, Phoenician, Moabite and Hebrew, dominate but there are also a number of Arabic names. Surprisingly, many Egyptian names are attested in Assyria proper, especially in the 7th century material from Assur. Some of the earliest attestations for Iranian names are found in the Neo-Assyrian sources. Hurrian, Urartian, Anatolian and Elamite names are also known, as well as a number of Greek names.

Source: The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Karen Radner)

Alanson
03-19-2014, 06:46 PM
Arabic names in Assyrian records from the 1st millennium BCE do exist, however, they appear to represent a minority, as do non-Semitic names, including those of Egyptian, Iranian, Hurrian, Elamite, Urartian, Anatolian, and Greek origin.



Source: The Prosopography of the Neo-Assyrian Empire (Karen Radner)

That's not strange at all, because the Kedarites who are Arabs seemed to have been linked to the Assyrian empire. Not only that the Kedarites were Arabian tribes that eventually settled in Jordan and interestingly were followers of Goddess cults.

The Qedarites (also Kedarites/Cedarenes, Cedar/Kedar/Qedar, and Kingdom of Qedar) were a largely nomadic, ancient Arab and Semitic tribal confederation. Described as "the most organized of the Northern Arabian tribes", at the peak of its power in the 6th century BC it controlled a large region between the Persian Gulf and the Sinai Peninsula.

The Qedarites were an "Arab tribal confederation," or "alliance of nomadic Arab tribes." According to Philip J. King, theologian and historian, they lived in the northwest Arabian desert and were "an influential force from the 8th to 4th centuries BC."Geoffrey Bromiley, historical theologist and translator, transcribes their name as Kedar and states they lived in an area southeast of Damascus and east of the Transjordan.

Qedarite domination of northwest Arabia involved alliances between the kings of Qedar and the kings of Dedan (Al-`Ula). Historian Israel Eph'al writes that the "breadth of Qedarite distribution suggests a federation of tribes with various sub-division.

The first documented mention of Qedar is from a stele (c. 737 BC) of Tiglath-Pileser III, a king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, that lists leaders from the western part of Mesopotamia that pay him tribute.To the Assyrians, the Qedarites were known as Qidri or qi-id-ri with other cuneiform inscriptions also using Qadri, Qidarri, Qidari and Qudari (Neo Babylonian). Zabibe (c. 738 BC) is listed among those paying tribute under the title "queen of the Qidri and the Aribi" (Aribi meaning "Arabs")

Also mentioned in Assyrian royal inscriptions is Zabibe's successor Yatie (c. 730 BC), who sent forces headed by her brother Baasqanu to aid Merodach-Baladan in his bid to hold onto power in Babylon.[20][21] Together with an army from Elam, this alliance faced the forces of Sennacherib, on the Assyrian king's first campaign in 703 BC. The events of the battle are recorded in the annals of Sennacherib which describe Yatie as "queen of the Arabs," and tell of the capture of her brother Baasqanu in battle. Israel Eph'al writes that this is the first mention in Assyrian documents of Arabs as an ethnic element in Babylonia.

Statements about the Qedarites in the annals of the Assyrian kings of Ashurbanipal and his son Esarhaddon indicate that the term Kedar was almost synonymous with Arabia. Hazael, who ruled c. 690–676 BC, is described as a Qedarite king by Ashurbanipal and "king of the Arabs" by Esarhaddon.[23][24] After Sennacherib's invasion of Babylonia in 691–689 BC, Hazael fled to Dumah. Dumah is referred to as Adummatu by the Assyrians, and the city is described by them as the seat of the Qedar confederation and the base of their cult.

Thus it seems the Arabian presence is rather much earlier than even the Lakhmids and Ghassanids in this region.

Arbogan
04-25-2014, 01:34 PM
It's an interesting question. To regurgitate others, you're not going to make a convincing case without substantial and diverse sampling and autosmal testing of Iraqis.

While i grant you, there are genuine Arab tribes living in Iraq, since the Islamic expansion, that have well-recorded presence. We don't know to what extent, and we don't know which arab tribes are of mixed heritage, which ones are pure and which ones are arabized.

Arabic immigration into adjacent regions in west-asia and north-africa was mostly driven by the fact that the early islamic dynasties, the umayyads and the abbasids militarily depended on connections with ( The early Islamic conquest was headed by confederations of Muslim Arab tribes lead by Muhammad and later his followers) Arab tribes and their leaders, to secure their domains and frontiers. In southern Iraq f.ex some of the cities began as fortress cities built for Arab tribe contingents. We know that Islam in Persia and Iraq didn't become the predominant religion until the 11th century. We also know that Arabs were conscious of their lineages until the medieval ages, and that traditionally Arab tribes lived in rural areas of Iraq. There are also a lot of clearly Arabized Assyrians and Persian descended city dwellers, who claim to be Arabic, but have no tribal affiliations, or have intermarried into tribial connections. It's the same with people claiming to be seyyeds and part of clergy.

We also don't know how the shiism-sunni rift, the various non-Arab, turko-persian and turko-anatolian dynasties(such as seljuks, turkmen, safavids, ottomans) who ruled Mesopotamia, have affected the demography of Iraq. Mesopotamia has always been a central region for the regional powers that be, and has been a crossroads for numerous population movements and has undergone numerous transformations. The Abbasid weren't the only rulers, even if they had a long-reign during the medieval ages.

If i had to go purely by social, and political inferences, I'd probably say a rural versus urban model for arab ancestry is the one that makes most sense. That rural Sunni tribes in Iraq and border regions contain the denizens with most Arab ancestry. While metropolitan Iraqi Arabs and shiah iraqi arabs(who were an underclass of serfs in iraq since ottoman times) Shiah clergy, and Iraqis without any direct tribal affiliations have the least Arab ancestry.

But we won't know until we get diverse and large scale samples. From what we've seen so far fits the model i presented above. With Iraqis in border regions, being more ancestrally Arab, while metropolitan baghdadi iraqis are more similar to Assyrians and Persians, with some Arab ancestry. I suspect that this probably how it is.

Alanson
05-07-2014, 06:35 AM
^ This seems to be very accurate to describe the situation. It seems that the Mongol and Timurid devastated the region, and it was depopulated. Arab chronicles mentioning that the people left for Egypt and India. The region seemed to have become a Desert. Also Tamer lane destroyed Baghdad more so than Helegu did, but the first was more significant. This why the Timurids and Mongols are hated and resented. At the same time Iraq became wasteland and Desert. It was said that in the beginning large amount of Bedouin tribes began to settle in the region, who eventually adopted Shiaism in the 19th century, most likely due to the influence of the Persian clergy who had taken refuge after the Afghan rule in Iran. Of course those in the urban areas would more Arabized, and those who lack a tribal one.

The Safavid tried to force the Arabs in Iraq in particular in Mosul and Basra into Shiaism but this was met with heavy resistance. This not mention the Qizilbash used to raid these areas. It said that the Sunni Arabs were heavily discriminated by the Safavids, and that the eventually welcomed the Ottomans into the region. At the same time the Safavid had come into conflict with Shia nomadic Bedouins who followed the mystical creed of Musha'sha'iyyah, which has been responsible for the growth and conversion to Shiaism among the people in Iraq. Yet it seems the majority has only switched recently to Shiaism. There has been the way to change Shiaism and try to divorce it's Persian influence, and there has come what is called Arab Shi and Safavid Shi. The Safavid Shi in the Arab mind symbolize the Persian influence and corruption of Shiaism and the anti-Arab element within Persian culture, mostly due to the Safavid invasions of Iraq and the marginalization of the Sunni Arab population at the time a majority. This attitude can be seen among Arab Shia nationalist in Ahwaz who want to independence and Iraqi Arab Shias who see Iran's influence to have always been negative. Well others argue that Shiaism in all is the same but practiced differently due to the culture that is present in the region. The irony is that Qizilbash Shiaism was very heterodox and it was Arabs who came from Southern Lebanon and Bahrain to spread it in peaceful means.

The largest Shia tribe is the Muntafaq who is Shia Bedouin one, followed by Shammar Toga, and Banu Assad.

Erik
07-12-2014, 01:50 AM
Important map of Lakhmid and Ghassanid areas

http://s29.postimg.org/fgldg2zt3/arabia_pre_islam.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Arabian tribes in Iraq

http://s7.postimg.org/jj22z0d4b/tribalmap525a.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

http://s23.postimg.org/sq9cypzvf/legend.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

Note:Shammar Toga is clan of the Shammar tribe they are called Southern clans, well the Shammar in the north are called Northern clans belonging to the Abada/Jebali and Al-Jarba clan. As you can see the Bedouin tribes in this region are quite the majority, and all trace back to Arabia. So much for Arabization.
Medina used to be Jewish? Very interesting.

Alanson
07-14-2014, 07:30 AM
Medina used to be Jewish? Very interesting.

Quite a large swath of Arabia used to be Jewish. Yes Medina did have a lot of Jewish tribes in it. Also two important Jewish kingdoms rose in Arabia Himyrite and Kindah.

Mamluk
07-15-2014, 03:00 AM
Medina used to be Jewish? Very interesting.

Yeah, back then it was called Yathrib. Some of the Yathrib Jews converted to Islam, and the ones that didn't went towards Palestine and Syria.

Some Palestinian families, especially those in Hebron, have oral traditions which state they are descended from the Yathrib Jews, and they converted to Islam in the medieval era.

Real_Amharas
07-31-2017, 06:39 PM
The different genetic between Arabians/Levant/Whites is very small... Even if Arabian Arabized them they are still the same people and very similer to to each other they are nearly identical. Even if Arabia Arabized Europeans the difference will be unknown... Sometimes it's hard to tell a South-European/Levant/Arabian apart...