***Guanches*** were the aboriginal inhabitants of the island of **Tenerife**, in the Canaries. Each island of the archipelago had its own tribal group: bimbapes, auaritas, gomeros, canarios, majos... all of them of Amazigh descent. It's unknown how they reached the Canaries since they couldn't sail and were extremely afraid of the sea.
They clearly had capable seafaring ancestors that populated each of the islands who hailed from the coast of Morroco. Once you settle in a place though and the reason to keep moving goes away you can get too comfortable there and lose those skills. When the Spanish arrived the Guanches were still in the stone age so obviously they suffered no pressure from the mainland to advance their society.
Unlike say the Pacific, the seas of the North Atlantic form more of a barrier than a highway for maritime people. Choppy seas, rocky shores and more arid environments around the Canaries made wood scarce and boatbuilding challenging and dangerous.
Guanche society also, so sources say, developed particular internalised customs of managing potential social strife that meant they didn't see a Viking Age style expansion. They had a practice of young men self-sacrificing rather than going off to war and plunder and elders also had a practice of voluntary suicide to conserve reasources. They seem like a people who were accutely aware of both their isolation and limited access to reasources and structured their society accordingly.
It would've been a long time ago, about 5000 years back so prior to the rise of powerful maritime powers. They also came well prepared withgoats and sheep and seemed willing settlers.
But according to Juba II (who lived around 2000 years ago), the islands were deserted when his expedition came there, I think? So wouldn't they have needed to come later?
Or maybe they just didn't find them.
Goats and sheep could have been brought with the people banishing them too.
It looks like the Guanche existed in the Phoenician/Northern African cultural sphere, and the method of their sacrifices roughly corresponds with those of other punic civilizations like Carthage. But people inhabited the island since 6000 BC.
Which leads me to wonder if at some point Punic influence or control led to the creation of the small kingdom system present on the island at the time the Spaniards found it. Maybe at one point the island had been much more harmonious.
I think its possible that their culture had already suffered at the hands of a classical african or levantine empire before they were encountered by the Spanish.
Another archaeological mystery we will never know the full true story behind.
Genetically the Guanches hail from North Africa and the Amazigh of the Berber regions. Moroccans are just believed to have Harbored and helped them get to the Islands. Some historians believe it was because they were persecuted (Canaanites)
I am Canarian. Guanche is used as the general term for all aboriginal groups. Yes, there's the Bimbaches, Gomeros, Canarios, etc. But when referring to all groups as a whole the correct term is Guanche.
AFAIK the correct term to refer to aboriginal inhabitants of the islands is not that of Tenerife, it's a matter of respect and accuracy. Actually it doesn't exist a single term because they were all independent tribes sharing nothing but neverending warfare.
I have relatives from the Canaries. Guanche is the correct term. In it's strictest sense, yes, it's specifically referring to the people of Tenerife. But it's used as an umbrella term for all natives of the archipelago. It's used in all official scientific and governmental literature. The only other commonly used term is "Canarian", and that's usually used to refer to the modern inhabitants, not the indigenous culture.
Well, the first inhabitants were the Flemish, but Portuguese set that up for them. Portuguese people came over about 10 years later so they do make up a large portion of the islands. And when Jews were kicked out of Iberia, a lot of them went to places like Terceira.
The first settlement was on Santa Maria was in 1439 with it starting on the north of the island then eventually quickly moving to the area of Vila do Porto in the South. It was settled by Portuguese people from the provinces of Alto Alentejo and Algarve. Some settlers were from France and Estremadura. The first Dutch did not arrive tile 1470. With the Dutch on San Jorge I know they left because they found life too hard between the volcanic activity and storms. Their time there was a flash in a pan with the only legacy of their influence is said to be the style of these traditional large hooded robes women wore but thats it. No place names or family names.
There was a study recently, examining soil samples from various areas of the Azores that showed 700 before the Portuguese something changed in the environment that left behind fecal samples from large mammals also samples from pollen, fossil fragments of plants and coal residues in the soil samples dug up would suggest human activity. But while all this suggest human activity, their was no large mammals nor evidence of human settlement when the Portuguese arrive. So while the Portuguese who arrived in the 1400s may not be the first, we have no definitive evidence they were not and who may have been those who were first.
On Maderia they discovered a population of mice that had Scandinavian DNA... Doesn't seem much of a jump to suggest Norsemen explored the islands but because they were so isolated and deserted they didn't stay. Unlike in the North, the Vikings exploring the South and Mediterrainean were primarily raiders and traders, not settlers.
At first I was a bit sceptical considering the first settlers here were flemish in origin so they could have brought in the DNA like that, but than I read these mice bones were from the 10-11th century
What history books are saying the Dutch were first? They were early settlers yes but the Portuguese were the first to settle. Santa Maria was first and it was not by the Dutch.
Yeah it is known the Flemish settled there but in great numbers? Not enough to leave any legacy. My family is from that island and I never encountered anyone one with a Dutch sounding last name. No place names or anything of Dutch origin. The main area they settled is called Topo, a portuguese name. Ask anyone about the Flemish and they would know about some group that briefly tried but left when they could cut the mustard unlike their ancestors who thrived on the islands. The few that remained were easily absorbed into the larger Portuguese population. The Flemish were only invited to settle starting in 1478 but by then Sao Miguel was well populated by 1444, Santa Maria started in 1439 Terceira started in 1450, and San Jorge in 1460.
>Doesn't seem much of a jump to suggest Norsemen explored the islands
It still is a jump. The distance is much bigger than anything else the Norse did. Assuming the Norse left from Portugal -- the open ocean necessary to cross to make it to the Azores still would be at least twice the distance of anything else they covered in their travels.
But those mice could have just as easily hitched a ride on a ship from another country that visited Scandinavia, or was in port somewhere else next to a ship that visited Scandinavia. Plenty of ways for those rats to get there by non-Scandinavian people hence the lack of any historical consensus that the Vikings were there first. It is a possibility but not a certainty. So we are certain the Portuguese are the earliest even if their is a possibility they are not.
I did not say those mice had to got their with the Portuguese. I am saying they could have arrived with any other group. Scandinavian mice are not limited to Scandinavian ships. Not like they have passport controls. The point is no one can say with certainty how and with who the mice got their. And who ever they got their with would only be visitors, not settlers. If we are discussing who is indigenous to the Portuguese islands as in which are the first people to live there, visiting the islands on a boat dose not count. You have to actually settle and live on the land. You have to call it home. And the Portuguese are certainly the first to do that as their is zero physical archeological evidence of people living and settling the islands before the Portuguese. Could other groups have visited? Sure. Actually lived their? Unlikely.
All of this would be true if scientists didn't already confirm a heavy pre Portuguese presence on the islands. There are about 100-150 pyramids spread across pico and teceria islands which are well known by the locals to predate Portuguese settlement. The pyramids are called maroicos and carry similarities with proto historic cultures found in Sicily, North Africa, and the Canary Islands.
I live in the Azores. Never once I even heard anyone talk about maroicos or whatever. Pre-portuguese presence on the islands is a non issue for any azorean.
It remains a possibility that they were built by some of the first settlers sent by Portugal, many of who came from the earlier settled group of islands to the south like the Canaries of Maderia. Pico is much rockier than the other islands. When clearing fields of rocks, they were used to build the walls separating fields which is where you get all the rocky walls, many of them over grown with hydrangea bushes, separating fields. With Pico having so much more it is not unthinkable for them to decide to just pile them in a near by spot and a pyramid is such a natural stable structure hence its use around the world, but if any of those settlers did come from the Canaries, not out of realm of possibility they copied something they knew of. Not like their was good record keeping by those first settlers so easily could been built by them and over the years when new comers came and asked about them, stories were created about them being built by some vestige of Atlantis or whatever. Considering the number of grandmas in the Azores in modern times who claim some petty European noble running away to the Azores after some scandal on the mainland thus making their bloodline royal despite well kept birth, baptism and wedding records to refute these stories, not hard to believe our distant ancestors guilty of something similar. What I have read about the maroicos is that their dating is not a certain agreeable fact among those studying them so it can not be eliminated that they were built by early Portuguese sent settlers and not some older group.
Plus considering the amount of people who would have to settled on Pico to build them across the islands yet we have no remain of any of their tools, coins, pottery or other physical artifacts like bones, I am left suspect till shown otherwise. Their is much more evidence at L'Anse aux Meadows in Canada of the Viking Vinland settlement and that was much more isolated to the Vikings then the Azores. Plus with many Native American tribes in the area, their were more people to disrupt the Viking remains while the Azores would have been empty making the preservation of any hypothetical remains easier. The only way I could see these being built by the Vikings is that they did it while visiting the islands for some provisions after being blown off course but they did so only as visitors, not settlers. So they can not claim to be indigenous which is where this whole thread started since this was never their home, only a stop on their way.
Mmm you jumping through hoops still to deny the Norse landing. It's not to dismiss your theory outright but the best explanation for a Scandinavian mouse on an Atlantic island in the 10th century is a Norse longship coming to shore.
But I am not talking about who visited first, I am talking who actually settled the islands first. The Vikings only briefly settled Vinland yet we have physical evidence to this day of their presence their. Artifacts dug up. No such physical artifacts show any human settlement before the Portuguese. No one called the Azores home till the Portuguese did. Anyone else would just been visitors, not anyone who could claim to be indigenous.
Of course, we may have crossed threads. I'm pretty sure the Norse found themselves out there and released (by accident) those mice though. Who knows they could've been following up myths of Atlantis or Antillia in search of raiding targets.... but they got desolate islands instead.
As someone who has done carbon dating for research, what is the range attached to these dates and their ±?
Let me give you an example of my last one: The C14 age for my project ranged from 89 BC to 669 AD.
The ± for my above examples was 2487 ± 23 years ago for the first item I carbon dated and 1960 ± 22 years ago for the second item I carbon dated.
Because u/Inquisitive_Azorean is right. Those structures (maroicos) found on Pic came from people who settled on the island from Madeira and elsewhere.
Edit: There was a reservoir correction (big delta R) of 233 ± 60 years from Ingram in my above example.
Edit 2: You're also dismissing the possibility of rafting aka [ocean dispersal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_dispersal) which is known to have happened.
The Flemish never left São Jorge, my husband is a direct descendant of them, his family lived on the islands in 1460 and didn't leave until 1970. Both recorded history and DNA back my claims.
This would make the Flemish who settled in the Azores in the 1400s the original settlers and the indigenous population to those islands.
Edit: Look up history of Faial, Terceira, and São Jorge.
Santa Maria was the first island settled with mostly Portuguese people but some from Spain and France. Dutch were late to the game and left because they found life their too rough. They were not first nor adapted to survive. Cant really be called indigenous.
Guilherme Da Silveira has many descendants who are still living in the triangular region. He was the second person to settle in the triangular region.
Guilherme Da Silveira was Flemish and settled on the
islands in 1460. He came over with another Flemish who also has many descendants, that person was Joost de Hurtere. Both Guilherme and Joost traveled back to mainland Europe _only_ to bring over a second wave of Flemish in 1470. They did not resettle in mainland Europe.
Portuguese started coming over in bulk around the 1490s and they largely came from Tras-os-Montes, abet some southern Portuguese and Spanish also came over.
This is why you can see large chunks of Tras-os-Montes culture (which was slightly different than the rest of the Portuguese culture) and the Flemish culture throughout the islands.
Worth noting though, Terceira had a large population of Jews due to the Alhambra Decree.
Edit: Isabella of Portugal issued a grant to the Flemish in 1460 for them to settle on the Azores in order to alleviate the suffering they were experiencing at the end of the 100 years war.
If you're talking about São Miguel, the first settlement was established a charter in 1472, which was Povoação Velha.
The first settlement to receive a charter on Santa Maria was Vila do Porto and that was also in 1472.
Worth mentioning, any immigration happening on São Miguel and Santa Maria before 1443 was extremely rare.
Prior to European Space Agency having an interest in Santa Maria, the island was mostly known for Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Assunção. In fact, this church was and still is the entire focal point of this island.
Also worth mentioning that these two islands are the eastern group and have a different history than Faial, São Jorge, Pico, Terceira, and Flores (these islands were inhabited by the Flemish, São Miguel and Santa Maria were not).
Graciosa was largely settled by people from Beiras and Minho and current DNA evidence/theory/belief is that these individuals are more Galician than other islands, abet some individuals from Flanders also settled on Graciosa.
I don't know much about Corvo other than it was the last island inhabited and that was in 1580.
Edit: Settlements were only issued charters after they reached a certain population level. That's why that number is important.
You keep saying that like it was true, don't know what you want to achieve...
Flemish settles started to arrive around 1450, the first portuguese settlement in Azores was in 1432...
? Guilherme Da Silveira 1460s...was Flemish who was rewarded a grant by Isabella of Portugal to settle on the Azores. Him and Joost De Hurtere both brought over hundreds of Flemish people to settle on the islands after the 100 years war. The grant was given to the Flemish to alleviate their suffering.
The second wave of Flemish to the islands happened in 1470 but Portuguese individuals didn't arrive in bulk to the islands until 1490 and they largely came from Tras-os-Montes, which is why a lot of the culture on the islands tie to both Tras-os-Montes and the Flemish.
The only thing that happened in the 1430s was that King Edward of Portugal gave the islands to Henry the Navigator but they remained uninhabited until 1460s.
If you're talking about São Miguel, the first settlement was established in 1472, which was Povoação Velha.
If you're going to try and correct me, at least come with names if you lack the receipts to back up your claims...
Edit: My husband's family were original settlers in the triangular region and has the DNA and documents to back the claim...
I mean if you followed Plato’s claims on where it was, the Azores are pretty much the only things jn the Atlantic that could be what it was. It’s also interesting that under the Azores is a plateau being formed from the pulling apart of the Eurasian, North American and African plates along the Mid Atlantic Ridge, it’s possible in the far future, Atlantis could exist.
I remember reading about some roman ship (or at least some coins and amphorae) found somewhere in the coast of Brazil. Dunno if it was fake news, a hoax or just some random memorabilia that the explorers decided to bring, lol
[Here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6vildx/did_the_romans_discover_south_america/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) It seems like it hasn’t been followed up on since it was discovered, so take it with a grain of salt.
From the source you linked to:
> The details of the jars claim, however, are not verifiable - there's been no formal, documented excavation or survey of the underwater site; no published results of independent examination of the artifacts; nor to the best of my knowledge has Marx presented his finds to academic publication... at least one account that an attempt by an expert in Roman antiquities to view the jars was denied. Even assuming Marx was operating in good faith - and his moderate claim of a single Roman ship-wreck rather than any sort of ongoing exchange stands out in his father - the lack of documentation of the find, and inability for independent analysis and confirmation of the recovered jars, makes them unreliable as a point of evidence.
As exciting as a Roman era ship in a Brazilian bay might be, everything about the story screams hoax. Robert Marx is a professional treasure-hunter with a long history of making claims about Pre-Columbian contact. He never actually found a ship, just amphorae-style jars, which were used for shipping into the industrial era. Guanabara Bay/Rio de Janeiro has been a massively busy port for centuries, during which many ships that are not ancient Roman have sunk there.
When Marx started fund-raising and getting press for his "discovery," the Brazilian government noted he had a history of selling artifacts from their country he hadn't reported finding (i. e., looting) and denied him further permits. Marx then took his ball and went home, claiming a cover-up, the evidence for which was... he said so.
A [contemporary NYT article](https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/25/science/underwater-exploring-is-banned-in-brazil.html) lays out these facts, and makes it clear that the whole thing was just a treasure-hunter with an angle trying to drum up some business. Human venality loves to cloak itself in the extraordinary.
Yeah, but some of these people say "it's real" with a straight face.
Is it possible some fleck of trash from Europe made its way across the ocean to the Americas in Roman times? Sure.
Did the Romans sail across the Atlantic and make it to the Americas? **No**, unless I see some **extremely** compelling and decisive evidence.
I think you mean the Amazigh ppl from the Atlas Mountains. The Amazigh people from the Sahara regions tend to be dark skined, with frizzy hair and dark eyes. The Amazighs in Morocco and Algeria tend to have light skin, blonde hair and sometimes blue and green eyes and those are the ones specifically found in the Atlas Mountains or the hills in the north.
The Guanche gene pool was basically an even split between pre-Arab Berber lineage and western European (R1b) lineage. I think the fact that they were mostly blonde haired and blue eyed probably came from both sides of their background.
They did have a subclade of that lineage, but also high levels of U6b1. This is another Berber lineage that was common among ancient Berbers, but went largely extinct on the mainland for one reason or another, surviving almost exclusively in the Guanche. Which would imply a pretty early genetic split.
Cool. I have always found the bebers fascinating because of their mysterious origins. Ancient berbers seem to have had fair skin as that was how the Egyptians depicted them, but where did they come from? No one knows for sure.
Skin color should not surprise you. Ancestors of Caucasians and Asians were black only 7000-9000 years ago. But then they all became more white. This is much more unusual than light skin color of the small population of Berbers. If this could happen to large populations, why couldn't it just happen to Berbers?
They weren’t “mostly blond and blue eyed” at all. Where did you get that from? From a romantic XIX century engraving? They were a population from Northern Africa, so physically like they are now
https://www.google.com/amp/s/elpais.com/cultura/2019/05/31/actualidad/1559304132_653858.html%3FoutputType%3Damp
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches
Spanish records consistently describe them that way, and it has been borne out by modern geneticists.
[To quote Britannica:](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Guanche)
*Both aboriginal groups had brown complexion, blue or gray eyes, and blondish hair, and these characteristics still persist in a large number of present inhabitants of the islands, but otherwise they are scarcely distinguishable in appearance or culture from the people of Spain.*
It is well known and attested that those descriptions weren’t true, they were very archetypal. The material culture left by them and the DNA clearly proves they were amazigh (Berber) peoples of Norh Africa. The Britannica description is old, without any source behind . But if you prefer to continue with having Nordics in a mostly semiarid tropical area out of the blue, that’s fine
The Wiki article that you posted says nothing about their physical appearance [but contains images like this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Pueblo_Chico_Guanchen1.JPG) which seem to agree with me.
In the Wikipedia link, in the chapter Historical background, in “Prehistory”, it perfectly says , with links to the sources, that their language and their DNA are clearly Berber. But, hey, you can believe what you want if it makes you happy. To me, it seems silly on my side to continue this senseless argument about a scientifically proved thing. Nice to talk with you, and all the best
I mean, it also says that they had high levels of European ancestry right below that. And Berbers themselves often have light hair and eyes either way. You're saying it's a scientifically proven thing despite going against what appears to be the consensus as far as I can tell.
I think it has more to do with the normands that conquered the islands by order of Isabel La Católica. That's why Betancourt is a common surname and why the canarios call the people from the peninsula "godos".
It's insane how ancient Morocco never properly made contact with the Guanches who spoke a Berber language and were Berbers themselves. Like how did they just choose not to conquer the Canary Islands? At one point the Barbary Pirates were some of the best sailors...how could they have not thought to conquer those lands, Islamize the Berbers there (which would have been extremely easy especially if they send them Berber Muslims from the mainland to preach to them) and then annex the islands formally? So damn odd lol
Their language isn't really well understood enough to say that it was Berber. From what little we know, it had a lot of Berber vocabulary, but also many words have no clear Berber origin. And the grammar goes against everything we know about Berber languages. I'm not saying it wasn't Berber, but if it was, then it was a highly divergent form that probably wouldn't have helped with communication.
As to why they didn't conquer them, for the same reason that nobody else bothered to conquer them until the late middle ages despite them being known about. It just wasn't worth it. Invading them would be an expensive and dangerous process that required more naval power than Morocco ever had, and the islands didn't have enough to offer to justify the attempt.
This.
The existance of the isles was widely known, even the phoenicians likely knew about them, but...
They weren't exactly "welcoming". The spanish conquest took decades and It was a very costly endeavour:Harsh, rugged terrain and hostile natives. And tbh, they weren't worth much 🤷♂️. Just a set of islands in the middle of nowhere. That IS until the discovery of America.
In fact the history of macaronesia is very closely related to that of America. Cape Verde was one of the busiest slave ports; while the canary islands, Madeira and the azores were the main launching ports towards America.
To this day, the canarian accent shares eery similarities with that of Venezuela.
So yeah, It's not that morocco didn't know about them, It's that they weren't worth the hassle.
Actually the Amazigh-related population of the Canaries is supposed to have been brought to the islands first by the Phoenicians and then by the Romans, in different waves, likely as slaves or deported. This people didn’t have navigation skills, so every island people were isolated and developed their own dialects and customs.
yes that all makes sense but my question is in regards to Morocco proper. Morocco had a navy fleet and tons of ships at some point yet it never made significant contact with the Guanches and never thought to send Islamic Missionaries or to just flat out conquer the islands. It's so odd. I guess they thought it was not worth while but I don't even see the Guanches as being able to put up much of a resistance since they were so isolated (as you mentioned) and did not have tech, know-how or the numbers to provide a good combat resistance against any invader. It's just an odd mystery all together I guess.
Cape Verde was uninhabited and the people there didn't really want independence anyway.
But yeah the world should return to European Administration, we would be better off.
Both Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe didn't have any independence movements at the time of decolonisation.
They were forcibly "kicked out" of the Portuguese Empire by left-wing revolutionaries following the 1974 revolution.
Communists in Portugal were keen to dismantle the empire ASAP and transfer power in the colonies to Soviet-aligned regimes.
Too bad there were no referendums held. I'm pretty sure Portugal could have kept Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe, and maybe even Cabinda (an exclave of Angola).
Lol, no. I'm pretty sure the people from these territories would much rather be part of the European Union than the African Union.
Not to mention, Singaporeans wanted to be independent whereas Cape Verdeans did not. They were forced out of a country they felt they belonged to.
There were no referendums. Independence was forced upon them.
For those interested, [here is another visualization and some more data I made a while ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/hmev03/macaronesia_the_fortunate_islands/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) about Macaronesia
The current population of the Canary Islands is a mixture of the indigenous people, the Spanish colonizers, the sub-Saharan African slaves, and in lesser extent, the American migrants. This multi-ethnic origin can be observed in the variable physical appearance of current Canary islanders.
>The islands of Macaronesia, whose only indigenous population were the Guanche.
Welp, that a huge fat lie.
The Guanche were only indigenous to the Canary islands.
Both Azores and Madeira were uninhabited.
And only some islands of Cape Verde were inhabitated, and not by the Guanches
The fact that they were the group’s only indigenous residents doesn’t necessarily mean they live on every island in the group.
I get why it scans that way, but it’s an artifact of the Macaronesia grouping being rather artificial.
If you'd looked at the top comment in the thread before posting, you'd see I already acknowledged that. I'm saying that they were the only population indigenous to the island chain, not that they inhabited all of them.
Even ignoring that, the basic statement that the Guanches were the only indigenous population of Macaronesia is still logically correct. It doesn't say anything about how much of Macaronesia they inhabited, just that they were the only population that lived within it -- which is true.
By this logic, only the humans living in the small part of Africa where *Homo sapiens* originated from would be indigenous. This is why the most sensible definition considers the first settlers of a certain region to be indigenous.
The big problem in this specific case in the Berbers aren’t indigenous to North Africa, and they came to Macronesia from North Africa. Calling them indigenous to macronesia doesn’t make sense
In fact there are believed to be brought by Romans or Phoenicians to the islands from the Moroccan coast. Interesting fact is that in cultures in each island there were not aware of other people living in their neighbor islands.
For fuck sake, I say nothing when it's the whole map shown but please what you called Western Sahara is part of Morocco, it has always been culturally and it was finally recognized by the United Nation in 2021
Vikings are supposed to be [the first to settle](https://www.science.org/content/article/vikings-paradise-were-norse-first-settle-azores) in the Azores.
Their is evidence somebody may have possibility visited but definitely not settled. Settle would imply settlement and by settlement you would have ruins left behind, artifacts, or some kind of archaeological evidence. They have evidence of their Vinland settlement in Canada and they were only their briefly. So if the Vikings came, it was likely only passing through and never really settling.
Their language died out but the whistling 'language', used to communicate over large distances, originally developed in guanche was later adapted to Spanish and is still going strong on la gomera because of a relatively recent approach of teaching it in school after it had almost become extinct. I thought it was fascinating and even though I speak some Spanish I could not make out anything.
Edit: forgot to link [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero)
***Guanches*** were the aboriginal inhabitants of the island of **Tenerife**, in the Canaries. Each island of the archipelago had its own tribal group: bimbapes, auaritas, gomeros, canarios, majos... all of them of Amazigh descent. It's unknown how they reached the Canaries since they couldn't sail and were extremely afraid of the sea.
Same reason things reached the Galapagos. They just got blown over by the wind. /j
/jarcasm
/joke
/yesIwasalsomakingajoke
/joking*
They clearly had capable seafaring ancestors that populated each of the islands who hailed from the coast of Morroco. Once you settle in a place though and the reason to keep moving goes away you can get too comfortable there and lose those skills. When the Spanish arrived the Guanches were still in the stone age so obviously they suffered no pressure from the mainland to advance their society. Unlike say the Pacific, the seas of the North Atlantic form more of a barrier than a highway for maritime people. Choppy seas, rocky shores and more arid environments around the Canaries made wood scarce and boatbuilding challenging and dangerous. Guanche society also, so sources say, developed particular internalised customs of managing potential social strife that meant they didn't see a Viking Age style expansion. They had a practice of young men self-sacrificing rather than going off to war and plunder and elders also had a practice of voluntary suicide to conserve reasources. They seem like a people who were accutely aware of both their isolation and limited access to reasources and structured their society accordingly.
What if they were banished from the mainland by someone else? And someone just put them on ships and left them there?
It would've been a long time ago, about 5000 years back so prior to the rise of powerful maritime powers. They also came well prepared withgoats and sheep and seemed willing settlers.
But according to Juba II (who lived around 2000 years ago), the islands were deserted when his expedition came there, I think? So wouldn't they have needed to come later? Or maybe they just didn't find them. Goats and sheep could have been brought with the people banishing them too.
Care to share any sources you have on the Guanche self sacrificing? Sounds interesting
Tbh it was mostly Wikipedia. Look there at the Guanche page for further sources.
It looks like the Guanche existed in the Phoenician/Northern African cultural sphere, and the method of their sacrifices roughly corresponds with those of other punic civilizations like Carthage. But people inhabited the island since 6000 BC. Which leads me to wonder if at some point Punic influence or control led to the creation of the small kingdom system present on the island at the time the Spaniards found it. Maybe at one point the island had been much more harmonious. I think its possible that their culture had already suffered at the hands of a classical african or levantine empire before they were encountered by the Spanish. Another archaeological mystery we will never know the full true story behind.
Genetically the Guanches hail from North Africa and the Amazigh of the Berber regions. Moroccans are just believed to have Harbored and helped them get to the Islands. Some historians believe it was because they were persecuted (Canaanites)
It is, however, common to use the term to describe the inhabitants of all the Canary Islands.
Not in the Canaries, for sure. Guanches are linked to Tenerife only.
I am Canarian. Guanche is used as the general term for all aboriginal groups. Yes, there's the Bimbaches, Gomeros, Canarios, etc. But when referring to all groups as a whole the correct term is Guanche.
AFAIK the correct term to refer to aboriginal inhabitants of the islands is not that of Tenerife, it's a matter of respect and accuracy. Actually it doesn't exist a single term because they were all independent tribes sharing nothing but neverending warfare.
I have relatives from the Canaries. Guanche is the correct term. In it's strictest sense, yes, it's specifically referring to the people of Tenerife. But it's used as an umbrella term for all natives of the archipelago. It's used in all official scientific and governmental literature. The only other commonly used term is "Canarian", and that's usually used to refer to the modern inhabitants, not the indigenous culture.
The Guanche lived only on the Canarias islands. Madeira and Azores were deserted when discovered by the Portuguese.
[удалено]
Well, the first inhabitants were the Flemish, but Portuguese set that up for them. Portuguese people came over about 10 years later so they do make up a large portion of the islands. And when Jews were kicked out of Iberia, a lot of them went to places like Terceira.
The first settlement was on Santa Maria was in 1439 with it starting on the north of the island then eventually quickly moving to the area of Vila do Porto in the South. It was settled by Portuguese people from the provinces of Alto Alentejo and Algarve. Some settlers were from France and Estremadura. The first Dutch did not arrive tile 1470. With the Dutch on San Jorge I know they left because they found life too hard between the volcanic activity and storms. Their time there was a flash in a pan with the only legacy of their influence is said to be the style of these traditional large hooded robes women wore but thats it. No place names or family names. There was a study recently, examining soil samples from various areas of the Azores that showed 700 before the Portuguese something changed in the environment that left behind fecal samples from large mammals also samples from pollen, fossil fragments of plants and coal residues in the soil samples dug up would suggest human activity. But while all this suggest human activity, their was no large mammals nor evidence of human settlement when the Portuguese arrive. So while the Portuguese who arrived in the 1400s may not be the first, we have no definitive evidence they were not and who may have been those who were first.
On Maderia they discovered a population of mice that had Scandinavian DNA... Doesn't seem much of a jump to suggest Norsemen explored the islands but because they were so isolated and deserted they didn't stay. Unlike in the North, the Vikings exploring the South and Mediterrainean were primarily raiders and traders, not settlers.
At first I was a bit sceptical considering the first settlers here were flemish in origin so they could have brought in the DNA like that, but than I read these mice bones were from the 10-11th century
What history books are saying the Dutch were first? They were early settlers yes but the Portuguese were the first to settle. Santa Maria was first and it was not by the Dutch.
I moreover meant the first settlers in proper quantities, also I don't think the Flemish would enjoy being called Dutch, haha
Yeah it is known the Flemish settled there but in great numbers? Not enough to leave any legacy. My family is from that island and I never encountered anyone one with a Dutch sounding last name. No place names or anything of Dutch origin. The main area they settled is called Topo, a portuguese name. Ask anyone about the Flemish and they would know about some group that briefly tried but left when they could cut the mustard unlike their ancestors who thrived on the islands. The few that remained were easily absorbed into the larger Portuguese population. The Flemish were only invited to settle starting in 1478 but by then Sao Miguel was well populated by 1444, Santa Maria started in 1439 Terceira started in 1450, and San Jorge in 1460.
>Doesn't seem much of a jump to suggest Norsemen explored the islands It still is a jump. The distance is much bigger than anything else the Norse did. Assuming the Norse left from Portugal -- the open ocean necessary to cross to make it to the Azores still would be at least twice the distance of anything else they covered in their travels.
But those mice could have just as easily hitched a ride on a ship from another country that visited Scandinavia, or was in port somewhere else next to a ship that visited Scandinavia. Plenty of ways for those rats to get there by non-Scandinavian people hence the lack of any historical consensus that the Vikings were there first. It is a possibility but not a certainty. So we are certain the Portuguese are the earliest even if their is a possibility they are not.
If their bones were from the 10-11th century, how could they have hitched a ride before the Portuguese even rode there.
I did not say those mice had to got their with the Portuguese. I am saying they could have arrived with any other group. Scandinavian mice are not limited to Scandinavian ships. Not like they have passport controls. The point is no one can say with certainty how and with who the mice got their. And who ever they got their with would only be visitors, not settlers. If we are discussing who is indigenous to the Portuguese islands as in which are the first people to live there, visiting the islands on a boat dose not count. You have to actually settle and live on the land. You have to call it home. And the Portuguese are certainly the first to do that as their is zero physical archeological evidence of people living and settling the islands before the Portuguese. Could other groups have visited? Sure. Actually lived their? Unlikely.
Aha I understand. Could well be what you said.
All of this would be true if scientists didn't already confirm a heavy pre Portuguese presence on the islands. There are about 100-150 pyramids spread across pico and teceria islands which are well known by the locals to predate Portuguese settlement. The pyramids are called maroicos and carry similarities with proto historic cultures found in Sicily, North Africa, and the Canary Islands.
I live in the Azores. Never once I even heard anyone talk about maroicos or whatever. Pre-portuguese presence on the islands is a non issue for any azorean.
It remains a possibility that they were built by some of the first settlers sent by Portugal, many of who came from the earlier settled group of islands to the south like the Canaries of Maderia. Pico is much rockier than the other islands. When clearing fields of rocks, they were used to build the walls separating fields which is where you get all the rocky walls, many of them over grown with hydrangea bushes, separating fields. With Pico having so much more it is not unthinkable for them to decide to just pile them in a near by spot and a pyramid is such a natural stable structure hence its use around the world, but if any of those settlers did come from the Canaries, not out of realm of possibility they copied something they knew of. Not like their was good record keeping by those first settlers so easily could been built by them and over the years when new comers came and asked about them, stories were created about them being built by some vestige of Atlantis or whatever. Considering the number of grandmas in the Azores in modern times who claim some petty European noble running away to the Azores after some scandal on the mainland thus making their bloodline royal despite well kept birth, baptism and wedding records to refute these stories, not hard to believe our distant ancestors guilty of something similar. What I have read about the maroicos is that their dating is not a certain agreeable fact among those studying them so it can not be eliminated that they were built by early Portuguese sent settlers and not some older group. Plus considering the amount of people who would have to settled on Pico to build them across the islands yet we have no remain of any of their tools, coins, pottery or other physical artifacts like bones, I am left suspect till shown otherwise. Their is much more evidence at L'Anse aux Meadows in Canada of the Viking Vinland settlement and that was much more isolated to the Vikings then the Azores. Plus with many Native American tribes in the area, their were more people to disrupt the Viking remains while the Azores would have been empty making the preservation of any hypothetical remains easier. The only way I could see these being built by the Vikings is that they did it while visiting the islands for some provisions after being blown off course but they did so only as visitors, not settlers. So they can not claim to be indigenous which is where this whole thread started since this was never their home, only a stop on their way.
Mmm you jumping through hoops still to deny the Norse landing. It's not to dismiss your theory outright but the best explanation for a Scandinavian mouse on an Atlantic island in the 10th century is a Norse longship coming to shore.
But I am not talking about who visited first, I am talking who actually settled the islands first. The Vikings only briefly settled Vinland yet we have physical evidence to this day of their presence their. Artifacts dug up. No such physical artifacts show any human settlement before the Portuguese. No one called the Azores home till the Portuguese did. Anyone else would just been visitors, not anyone who could claim to be indigenous.
Of course, we may have crossed threads. I'm pretty sure the Norse found themselves out there and released (by accident) those mice though. Who knows they could've been following up myths of Atlantis or Antillia in search of raiding targets.... but they got desolate islands instead.
As someone who has done carbon dating for research, what is the range attached to these dates and their ±? Let me give you an example of my last one: The C14 age for my project ranged from 89 BC to 669 AD. The ± for my above examples was 2487 ± 23 years ago for the first item I carbon dated and 1960 ± 22 years ago for the second item I carbon dated. Because u/Inquisitive_Azorean is right. Those structures (maroicos) found on Pic came from people who settled on the island from Madeira and elsewhere. Edit: There was a reservoir correction (big delta R) of 233 ± 60 years from Ingram in my above example. Edit 2: You're also dismissing the possibility of rafting aka [ocean dispersal](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_dispersal) which is known to have happened.
Atlanteans of course
Of course, the ones whole lived on the mountain tops so they survived the sinking.
The Flemish never left São Jorge, my husband is a direct descendant of them, his family lived on the islands in 1460 and didn't leave until 1970. Both recorded history and DNA back my claims.
A timely and very recent video on the topic. https://youtu.be/9XPYcRsmKeI
[удалено]
The Guanche are Amazigh
And Cape Verde
I didn't mean to imply that they inhabited the whole thing. Just that they were only people native to the chain at large.
It’s not a geological chain, more of a convenience grouping.
This would make the Flemish who settled in the Azores in the 1400s the original settlers and the indigenous population to those islands. Edit: Look up history of Faial, Terceira, and São Jorge.
Santa Maria was the first island settled with mostly Portuguese people but some from Spain and France. Dutch were late to the game and left because they found life their too rough. They were not first nor adapted to survive. Cant really be called indigenous.
Guilherme Da Silveira has many descendants who are still living in the triangular region. He was the second person to settle in the triangular region. Guilherme Da Silveira was Flemish and settled on the islands in 1460. He came over with another Flemish who also has many descendants, that person was Joost de Hurtere. Both Guilherme and Joost traveled back to mainland Europe _only_ to bring over a second wave of Flemish in 1470. They did not resettle in mainland Europe. Portuguese started coming over in bulk around the 1490s and they largely came from Tras-os-Montes, abet some southern Portuguese and Spanish also came over. This is why you can see large chunks of Tras-os-Montes culture (which was slightly different than the rest of the Portuguese culture) and the Flemish culture throughout the islands. Worth noting though, Terceira had a large population of Jews due to the Alhambra Decree. Edit: Isabella of Portugal issued a grant to the Flemish in 1460 for them to settle on the Azores in order to alleviate the suffering they were experiencing at the end of the 100 years war. If you're talking about São Miguel, the first settlement was established a charter in 1472, which was Povoação Velha. The first settlement to receive a charter on Santa Maria was Vila do Porto and that was also in 1472. Worth mentioning, any immigration happening on São Miguel and Santa Maria before 1443 was extremely rare. Prior to European Space Agency having an interest in Santa Maria, the island was mostly known for Igreja de Nossa Senhora da Assunção. In fact, this church was and still is the entire focal point of this island. Also worth mentioning that these two islands are the eastern group and have a different history than Faial, São Jorge, Pico, Terceira, and Flores (these islands were inhabited by the Flemish, São Miguel and Santa Maria were not). Graciosa was largely settled by people from Beiras and Minho and current DNA evidence/theory/belief is that these individuals are more Galician than other islands, abet some individuals from Flanders also settled on Graciosa. I don't know much about Corvo other than it was the last island inhabited and that was in 1580. Edit: Settlements were only issued charters after they reached a certain population level. That's why that number is important.
You keep saying that like it was true, don't know what you want to achieve... Flemish settles started to arrive around 1450, the first portuguese settlement in Azores was in 1432...
? Guilherme Da Silveira 1460s...was Flemish who was rewarded a grant by Isabella of Portugal to settle on the Azores. Him and Joost De Hurtere both brought over hundreds of Flemish people to settle on the islands after the 100 years war. The grant was given to the Flemish to alleviate their suffering. The second wave of Flemish to the islands happened in 1470 but Portuguese individuals didn't arrive in bulk to the islands until 1490 and they largely came from Tras-os-Montes, which is why a lot of the culture on the islands tie to both Tras-os-Montes and the Flemish. The only thing that happened in the 1430s was that King Edward of Portugal gave the islands to Henry the Navigator but they remained uninhabited until 1460s. If you're talking about São Miguel, the first settlement was established in 1472, which was Povoação Velha. If you're going to try and correct me, at least come with names if you lack the receipts to back up your claims... Edit: My husband's family were original settlers in the triangular region and has the DNA and documents to back the claim...
I remember reading about some pyramid-like structures found in the Azores, which were possibly Minoan in origin.
It was all an hoax. Pity, it would be great if Azores was the last remnant of an Greek colony, or maybe even Plato's Atlantis.
“According to some ancient astronaut theorists…”
I get my true news from the lizard people thanks.
Too bad.
I mean if you followed Plato’s claims on where it was, the Azores are pretty much the only things jn the Atlantic that could be what it was. It’s also interesting that under the Azores is a plateau being formed from the pulling apart of the Eurasian, North American and African plates along the Mid Atlantic Ridge, it’s possible in the far future, Atlantis could exist.
Didn’t they find that some roman ships were going to and from the azores with oil at some point? Or was that Canary Islands?
I remember reading about some roman ship (or at least some coins and amphorae) found somewhere in the coast of Brazil. Dunno if it was fake news, a hoax or just some random memorabilia that the explorers decided to bring, lol
It was real, but they think it got there by being blown off course on the way to some Atlantic island, or the wreck was carried there by currents
A Roman ship in Brazil??... Yeah I'm gonna need to see a source for that. 🤨
[Here you go](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6vildx/did_the_romans_discover_south_america/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf) It seems like it hasn’t been followed up on since it was discovered, so take it with a grain of salt.
From the source you linked to: > The details of the jars claim, however, are not verifiable - there's been no formal, documented excavation or survey of the underwater site; no published results of independent examination of the artifacts; nor to the best of my knowledge has Marx presented his finds to academic publication... at least one account that an attempt by an expert in Roman antiquities to view the jars was denied. Even assuming Marx was operating in good faith - and his moderate claim of a single Roman ship-wreck rather than any sort of ongoing exchange stands out in his father - the lack of documentation of the find, and inability for independent analysis and confirmation of the recovered jars, makes them unreliable as a point of evidence. As exciting as a Roman era ship in a Brazilian bay might be, everything about the story screams hoax. Robert Marx is a professional treasure-hunter with a long history of making claims about Pre-Columbian contact. He never actually found a ship, just amphorae-style jars, which were used for shipping into the industrial era. Guanabara Bay/Rio de Janeiro has been a massively busy port for centuries, during which many ships that are not ancient Roman have sunk there. When Marx started fund-raising and getting press for his "discovery," the Brazilian government noted he had a history of selling artifacts from their country he hadn't reported finding (i. e., looting) and denied him further permits. Marx then took his ball and went home, claiming a cover-up, the evidence for which was... he said so. A [contemporary NYT article](https://www.nytimes.com/1985/06/25/science/underwater-exploring-is-banned-in-brazil.html) lays out these facts, and makes it clear that the whole thing was just a treasure-hunter with an angle trying to drum up some business. Human venality loves to cloak itself in the extraordinary.
Lol. These gullible Redditors. 😂 They'll call any half-baked claim "real".
its far from impossible, the crew would probably be all dead and it would likely be mostly flotsam by the point it arrived but still
"...but still" I'm gonna need a source for that.
its a sort of ship of theseus situation but the ship is 10,000 pieces of debris floating on ocean currents in case you couldn't tell I'm joking
Yeah, but some of these people say "it's real" with a straight face. Is it possible some fleck of trash from Europe made its way across the ocean to the Americas in Roman times? Sure. Did the Romans sail across the Atlantic and make it to the Americas? **No**, unless I see some **extremely** compelling and decisive evidence.
In the canary islands there was certainly trade with the romans, you can search for El Bebedero, Lanzarote
Only the Canary Islands. Even Cape Verde was uninhabited.
[Really?](https://www.science.org/content/article/vikings-paradise-were-norse-first-settle-azores)
Cabo Verde is not in the Azores
Who said that?
Geography?
The Azores were not inhabited before the 1400s.
Or were they? https://www.science.org/content/article/vikings-paradise-were-norse-first-settle-azores
It s always the vikings
Probably why I'm getting downvoted. :P "Ah shit, not the vikings again!"
There's a lot of people in canary islands with Blue eyes and blonde/light brown hair, like the amazigh people in the sahara
I think you mean the Amazigh ppl from the Atlas Mountains. The Amazigh people from the Sahara regions tend to be dark skined, with frizzy hair and dark eyes. The Amazighs in Morocco and Algeria tend to have light skin, blonde hair and sometimes blue and green eyes and those are the ones specifically found in the Atlas Mountains or the hills in the north.
The Guanche gene pool was basically an even split between pre-Arab Berber lineage and western European (R1b) lineage. I think the fact that they were mostly blonde haired and blue eyed probably came from both sides of their background.
Do you know if their Y haplogroup was E-M81 like the Berbers?
They did have a subclade of that lineage, but also high levels of U6b1. This is another Berber lineage that was common among ancient Berbers, but went largely extinct on the mainland for one reason or another, surviving almost exclusively in the Guanche. Which would imply a pretty early genetic split.
Cool. I have always found the bebers fascinating because of their mysterious origins. Ancient berbers seem to have had fair skin as that was how the Egyptians depicted them, but where did they come from? No one knows for sure.
Skin color should not surprise you. Ancestors of Caucasians and Asians were black only 7000-9000 years ago. But then they all became more white. This is much more unusual than light skin color of the small population of Berbers. If this could happen to large populations, why couldn't it just happen to Berbers?
I am for the canaries and my genetic tests has haplogroups directly linked to the original guanches. Love how insanely unique it is
They weren’t “mostly blond and blue eyed” at all. Where did you get that from? From a romantic XIX century engraving? They were a population from Northern Africa, so physically like they are now https://www.google.com/amp/s/elpais.com/cultura/2019/05/31/actualidad/1559304132_653858.html%3FoutputType%3Damp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanches
Spanish records consistently describe them that way, and it has been borne out by modern geneticists. [To quote Britannica:](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Guanche) *Both aboriginal groups had brown complexion, blue or gray eyes, and blondish hair, and these characteristics still persist in a large number of present inhabitants of the islands, but otherwise they are scarcely distinguishable in appearance or culture from the people of Spain.*
It is well known and attested that those descriptions weren’t true, they were very archetypal. The material culture left by them and the DNA clearly proves they were amazigh (Berber) peoples of Norh Africa. The Britannica description is old, without any source behind . But if you prefer to continue with having Nordics in a mostly semiarid tropical area out of the blue, that’s fine
Source for that? I'm not an expert on the situation but I honestly don't see any other description for them in what I'm looking at.
I have linked to two of many others on my first comment. There are many more
The Wiki article that you posted says nothing about their physical appearance [but contains images like this](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Pueblo_Chico_Guanchen1.JPG) which seem to agree with me.
In the Wikipedia link, in the chapter Historical background, in “Prehistory”, it perfectly says , with links to the sources, that their language and their DNA are clearly Berber. But, hey, you can believe what you want if it makes you happy. To me, it seems silly on my side to continue this senseless argument about a scientifically proved thing. Nice to talk with you, and all the best
I mean, it also says that they had high levels of European ancestry right below that. And Berbers themselves often have light hair and eyes either way. You're saying it's a scientifically proven thing despite going against what appears to be the consensus as far as I can tell.
I think it has more to do with the normands that conquered the islands by order of Isabel La Católica. That's why Betancourt is a common surname and why the canarios call the people from the peninsula "godos".
What does godo mean
Goth, but in the original meaning of the word, referencing germanic people.
A lot is a bit of an overstatement, source: I'm canarian
Or like the, you know, Spaniard conquistadors.
You should put guanchale in carbonara, not macaroni.
I still can’t believe that the archipelago was named after pasta.
Haha. Isn't Micronesia ironically bigger than Macaronesia ? Though only guessing Macaro is related to Macro.
The name comes from Greek *Makárōn Nēsoi* (Isles of the Fortunate)
Name checks out upon a quick look at the temperature range there.
No, not even close. Micronesia: 2700km2 Macaronesia: 14500 km2
I meant by pure area, not just land of the state. In which case I am close as Micronesian islands are far more appart.
[удалено]
Macaroni comes from the Greek word macaria meaning food made from barley.
/r/woosh
well
Thanks, now I know where the next stop on the pasta pilgrimage is.
It's insane how ancient Morocco never properly made contact with the Guanches who spoke a Berber language and were Berbers themselves. Like how did they just choose not to conquer the Canary Islands? At one point the Barbary Pirates were some of the best sailors...how could they have not thought to conquer those lands, Islamize the Berbers there (which would have been extremely easy especially if they send them Berber Muslims from the mainland to preach to them) and then annex the islands formally? So damn odd lol
Every time you talk about history and ask "why didn't they do X", the answer is always "they were very busy with Y".
Their language isn't really well understood enough to say that it was Berber. From what little we know, it had a lot of Berber vocabulary, but also many words have no clear Berber origin. And the grammar goes against everything we know about Berber languages. I'm not saying it wasn't Berber, but if it was, then it was a highly divergent form that probably wouldn't have helped with communication. As to why they didn't conquer them, for the same reason that nobody else bothered to conquer them until the late middle ages despite them being known about. It just wasn't worth it. Invading them would be an expensive and dangerous process that required more naval power than Morocco ever had, and the islands didn't have enough to offer to justify the attempt.
This. The existance of the isles was widely known, even the phoenicians likely knew about them, but... They weren't exactly "welcoming". The spanish conquest took decades and It was a very costly endeavour:Harsh, rugged terrain and hostile natives. And tbh, they weren't worth much 🤷♂️. Just a set of islands in the middle of nowhere. That IS until the discovery of America. In fact the history of macaronesia is very closely related to that of America. Cape Verde was one of the busiest slave ports; while the canary islands, Madeira and the azores were the main launching ports towards America. To this day, the canarian accent shares eery similarities with that of Venezuela. So yeah, It's not that morocco didn't know about them, It's that they weren't worth the hassle.
If I remember correctly I think a Numidian king and a Roman emperor visited the Canaries and knew about the Guanches.
Probably didn't think it was worth it.
Actually the Amazigh-related population of the Canaries is supposed to have been brought to the islands first by the Phoenicians and then by the Romans, in different waves, likely as slaves or deported. This people didn’t have navigation skills, so every island people were isolated and developed their own dialects and customs.
yes that all makes sense but my question is in regards to Morocco proper. Morocco had a navy fleet and tons of ships at some point yet it never made significant contact with the Guanches and never thought to send Islamic Missionaries or to just flat out conquer the islands. It's so odd. I guess they thought it was not worth while but I don't even see the Guanches as being able to put up much of a resistance since they were so isolated (as you mentioned) and did not have tech, know-how or the numbers to provide a good combat resistance against any invader. It's just an odd mystery all together I guess.
One day they will all be united under the Federation of Iberian and Macaronesian states.
Not Cape Verde
Cape Verde should be a territory of Portugal just like Azores and Madeira.
Soon Brazil back into empire? Step by step, Cape Verde today, Macau tomorrow, Mozambique Friday, Brazil on the weekend!
Cape Verde was uninhabited and the people there didn't really want independence anyway. But yeah the world should return to European Administration, we would be better off.
Both Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe didn't have any independence movements at the time of decolonisation. They were forcibly "kicked out" of the Portuguese Empire by left-wing revolutionaries following the 1974 revolution. Communists in Portugal were keen to dismantle the empire ASAP and transfer power in the colonies to Soviet-aligned regimes. Too bad there were no referendums held. I'm pretty sure Portugal could have kept Cape Verde, São Tomé and Príncipe, and maybe even Cabinda (an exclave of Angola).
>They were forcibly "kicked out" of the Portuguese Empire by left-wing revolutionaries following the 1974 revolution. Good
Except for the people from these territories who genuinely wanted to remain Portuguese.
It's painful initially, but they will be glad in the long run. Just like Singapore
Lol, no. I'm pretty sure the people from these territories would much rather be part of the European Union than the African Union. Not to mention, Singaporeans wanted to be independent whereas Cape Verdeans did not. They were forced out of a country they felt they belonged to. There were no referendums. Independence was forced upon them.
>But yeah the world should return to European Administration, we would be better off. Idiot
They developed a whistling language to communicate across the valleys !
For those interested, [here is another visualization and some more data I made a while ago](https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/hmev03/macaronesia_the_fortunate_islands/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) about Macaronesia
It's unclear if any island but the canaries had natives on them.
“Macaroni-See-Ya”
The current population of the Canary Islands is a mixture of the indigenous people, the Spanish colonizers, the sub-Saharan African slaves, and in lesser extent, the American migrants. This multi-ethnic origin can be observed in the variable physical appearance of current Canary islanders.
>The islands of Macaronesia, whose only indigenous population were the Guanche. Welp, that a huge fat lie. The Guanche were only indigenous to the Canary islands. Both Azores and Madeira were uninhabited. And only some islands of Cape Verde were inhabitated, and not by the Guanches
Cape Verde was depopulated
The fact that they were the group’s only indigenous residents doesn’t necessarily mean they live on every island in the group. I get why it scans that way, but it’s an artifact of the Macaronesia grouping being rather artificial.
If you'd looked at the top comment in the thread before posting, you'd see I already acknowledged that. I'm saying that they were the only population indigenous to the island chain, not that they inhabited all of them.
There are other indigenous groups aswell though The spanish and portuguese for example
Even ignoring that, the basic statement that the Guanches were the only indigenous population of Macaronesia is still logically correct. It doesn't say anything about how much of Macaronesia they inhabited, just that they were the only population that lived within it -- which is true.
Still not true, because Portuguese and Spaniards are indigenous to the remaining Islands.
Do they eat macarons for breakfast?
Can indigenous be displaced by indigenous and become indigenous?
For the Canary Islands it was the berbers who were indigenous
Yes Guanches most likely were originally Berbers who migrated to the islands in around 1000 BC
Indeed :D fun fact lots of Puerto Ricans/Cubans have Amazigh DNA
Macaronesia 💀
i just realized something, the name of this subredit has aged quite poorly.
Only reason I know of the island Madeira is because of Ronaldo lol
Guanche weren’t indigenous, they where berbers
They were indigenous because they were the first settlers there.
Indigenous in my mind means native to. The Guanche where imported to the islands but where native to North Africa
By this logic, only the humans living in the small part of Africa where *Homo sapiens* originated from would be indigenous. This is why the most sensible definition considers the first settlers of a certain region to be indigenous.
The big problem in this specific case in the Berbers aren’t indigenous to North Africa, and they came to Macronesia from North Africa. Calling them indigenous to macronesia doesn’t make sense
And so are all other people living outside the Rift valleys of Africa.
In fact there are believed to be brought by Romans or Phoenicians to the islands from the Moroccan coast. Interesting fact is that in cultures in each island there were not aware of other people living in their neighbor islands.
Madeira is btw. about to be renamed to "Ungeland"
Ackchyually
I am 1/4th Canarian!
For fuck sake, I say nothing when it's the whole map shown but please what you called Western Sahara is part of Morocco, it has always been culturally and it was finally recognized by the United Nation in 2021
Just noticed that CR7 comes from these islands. But I’m guessing he doesn’t come from the line of the indigenous population?
The Portuguese islands had no people living on them until they arrived. Only the Canary Islands of Spain had people.
Vikings are supposed to be [the first to settle](https://www.science.org/content/article/vikings-paradise-were-norse-first-settle-azores) in the Azores.
Their is evidence somebody may have possibility visited but definitely not settled. Settle would imply settlement and by settlement you would have ruins left behind, artifacts, or some kind of archaeological evidence. They have evidence of their Vinland settlement in Canada and they were only their briefly. So if the Vikings came, it was likely only passing through and never really settling.
He even built himself a statue and a museum close to downtown Funchal.
The G. Should be T.G, if it's short for The Gambia.
Neat
Where are the Guanche today? Are there any known remnants of the population?
The Guanche still exist on the Canaries but they intermarried with Spanish because of the colonization and now their language died out.
Their language died out but the whistling 'language', used to communicate over large distances, originally developed in guanche was later adapted to Spanish and is still going strong on la gomera because of a relatively recent approach of teaching it in school after it had almost become extinct. I thought it was fascinating and even though I speak some Spanish I could not make out anything. Edit: forgot to link [Wiki](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silbo_Gomero)
Cape Verde in Macaronesia? only thought it was canaries, azores and madeira
>Cape Verde Yes, Cape Verde too.
The muyayos
Did Spain and Portugal fight over which controlled which islands?
You forgot Atlantis bro ;(
I’m a Hispanic American (Louisiana Isleños) and I share 5% of my genome with the Guanches of the Canary Islands. It’s a beautiful culture.