Talk:Guanches

Relations

Is it so generally acknowledeged the relationship between Guanches and Berbers? Davidme — Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 5 February 2003 (UTC)

"Racial purity"

"...they seem to have preserved racial purity..." I find objection to the term "racial purity" on the grounds of my basic knowledge of human population genetics. There is no such thing. It would be worth noting the isolation of the community, however. D.E. Cottrell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.104.131 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2005 (UTC)

Cottrell, your objections make you unobjective, nobody knows what doy you know about human population genetics, so your comment is invalid and ideologically driven. the Guanche were always reproted as different to the visitors and that indicates lack or very little of continental or other "genetic traits". so population of guanches was relatively identical, relatively standarised or non-diverse thus constituting stable "pure guanche" etnos/race/group/. So your PC correct corrects are absurdity in itself. Extending your logic you can prove that Inuit are black. ----sourcing of this reasoning is below, unless the editors disagree with their own editing.

shemyaza— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.135.101 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

sourcing

A 2003 genetics research article by Nicole Maca-Meyer et al. published in the European Journal of Human Genetics compared aboriginal Guanche mtDNA (collected from Canarian archaeological sites) to that of today's Canarians and concluded that, "despite the continuous changes suffered by the population (Spanish colonisation, slave trade), aboriginal mtDNA (direct maternal) lineages constitute a considerable proportion (42 – 73%) of the Canarian gene pool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.146.191.108 (talk) 10:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Image removed

The image itself contains a caption identifying it as a reconstruction of Cro-Magnon man, not a Guanche. The Cro-Magnons are just the earliest modern humans in Europe, so I'm kind of skeptical about the claim that the Guanches are particularly similar to Cro-Magnons; in any case, it's definitely not right to use an image of a reconstructed face from Cro-Magnon remains as if it were an image of a Guanche person. It would be equally valid to show the same image and label it "A Frenchman" or "An Englishman." --Reuben 00:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Appearance

Who is inventing about appareance? Please.. read books... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.35.110 (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Like the Encyclopaedia Britannica? Please do. And please don't vandalise by removing linked English terms such as Cro-Magnon with Spanish/Italian Cromagnoide. Save it for the Spanish language article, where it might actually be understood.

Why this fear of the appearance of the original population? Some of the Canaries islands had people with dark hair, some islands had populations with fair hair.

This is interesting, and can be used to trace their origins.

Why do you wish to suppress this information? Ashamed of your Spanish ancestors behaviour? Don’t be, we are all descended from people who did horrible things; It’s always the victors who get to breed the next generation.

As to the statement that the Guanches still exist in the Canaries, that makes even less sense than saying that the Indians still populate North America. The Guanches had no place to hide from the Spanish.

Look at Argentina: Almost no Indians in their ancestry, just Spaniards and Italians with a smattering of other European and middle eastern people. Why? Just flat grasslands where the indigenous population could not hide from the mounted Spaniards. Then look at mountainous and forested Bolivia; Quite a lot of natives surviving. There you can say that the indigenous people still exist today. Indigenous Guanche people living in the Canary Islands today? Get real.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.160.119 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, slight modification to the last bit. (slightly red ears) This site Aporte genético guanche a los canarios actuales states that DNA testing of the population indicates that 10% of the genes that are only passed down the paternal line are Guanche, and that 30%-40% of the genes that are only passed down the maternal line are guanche. Not sure about the accuracy of the site though.

Assuming the last number is 35% that means that about 22.5% of the genes in any given Canarian are from Guanche ancestors.

For those not so good at percentages that means; between a fifth and a quarter of the ancestors (male and female) were Guanche.

Anyway, that percentage does not in anyway support your phrase change from "The Guanches, now extinct as a distinct people" to "The Guanches, now alive in actual canaries". Besides being factualy inaccurate it is fairly sloppy english (said by another non native speaker, now without spelling checker...).

The article goes on to state that what probably hapened was that the Spanish came and killed or enslaved all the males and thereafter took their women. Makes sense. Why bring with you a short frigid Catholic brunette all the way from Spain when you can rape your way through your personal harem of stately blondes. Of course, maybe they were nice about it. I bet some of them got married.

This kind of thing has happened countles times before and will happen again. DNA testing of India's population indicates something similar Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced the origins of India's caste system. And then we have the not very gentle-men really, the Anglo-Saxons Saxon hordes ousted celts. Don't go researching your ancestors to far back, you might not like what you find... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.160.119 (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

The Europeans did not invent rape. All cultures practiced it. Remember Genghis Khan and the Mongols? They were not very European last time I checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.168.165 (talk) 04:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please study a little bit and stop liying, everybody is tired of the black legend. In Argentina they killed he indians in the XX century, the spanish did not touch them.Just a small example to start study. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miller33miller (talk • contribs) 01:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

again...

I have the enciclopedya brittanica too, but one of our is Canary, and arent you? I born here, I study my history, I speak whit the most important scientists about Guanches of actuallity, you based MY HISTORY, in desfased colonialist texts, maybe you must read cronists and source texts and then study what is truth, and then speak. Im so close to my precolonialist history, and if you arent some kind of scientist resident in canary, I think you cant speak about you dont know. You cant wirte about the history of a country, reading 5 minutes the enciclopedy brittanica.

Cro-Magnon in spanish is Cro-mañon, not cromagnoide, ( cromañoide in spanish ) is used to refeer to a certain genetic tipology.

The problem is the colonialist, who want to "europeist" canary islands, hehe, and there are not berbers blod whit blue eyes? That is the problem, and... what about the guanches hadnt place to hide from spaniards?? Gomera wasnt colonized, for example, to Gran Canaria, come 1000 colonist, and 300 died, 700 colonist and 35000 Canaries, in tenerife become 700 colonist, in a island of 30000 Guanches. Do you think that we are blonds cause europeans... HA HA, some centuries ago from Realejos peace, the most of the island was uncontroled by spaniards, for example, spaniards dont go more far than Güimar in XVI century.

I think you dont know nothing about my history.

http://personal.telefonica.terra.es/web/mleal/articles/africa/24.htm by Garcia Talavera, actual director of the antropology museum of Tenerife. ( Museo de la ciencia y el hombre )

You can see the most recent study made in canary, and the first whit a critteria ( to be grand father and grand matter canaries, and if possible his parents too, grangran father ? )

http://www.azarug.org/debate/viewthread.php?tid=1814

Is a forum post cause you must paid in EFE and "El dia" emerotec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.45.91 (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

are you joking?

I dont know why do you want change our history.

1º Who said Guanchis or Guanchos... first time that i hear it, and im from Tenerife... 2º Guanches where the inhabitants of TENERIFE, not the first, cause the werent a homogenous population, Guanches were the mixture of some different berber tribes. 3º Origin urcentain? They are berber. 4º Guanchinet is a corrupted term, is well know that Achineche is the correct name of Tenerife, not Chinech, Chinet or Achinet/ch , I Thin you are not berber filologist, my source is. 5º Viera y Clavijo, inveted the guanches extincionist, no other cronist talk about that... Is scientifical demostred that guanches were the most of the population, and are present in the most of actual population. 6º Most of them where cristianized 7º Mummyes is a incorrect term, taht are called, XAXOS 8º Embalming is a incorrect term, that is called Mirlado 9º Europeans tryed along history, destroy Canary Culture, creating a "particular hate to ours", that guanches were all blond and atll, is a intent of convert guanches to european, and destroy a bit more our real naturally, that have no fundament, in fact is well know, that guanches were of all heigh and colours, like my description, and it is cause berber are so similar, you can see so many berber redhaired or blonds.

Dont be fanatic, dont change the history of others, or maybe I will visit some post about England and say the truth, that Nelson lost his arm in Santa Cruz, against milicians, not spanish army, they were Milicians, the same people who descent from guanches. Spanish wasnt the unique who lost men against us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.155.45.91 (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes to Appearance

The Appearance section of this article has been plagued with a lack of structure for some time. I have tried to organize it thus: 1) first accounts of the Canary Islanders' appearance 2) theories of their origin based on their appearance 3) facts (linguistic and genetic evidence linking at least some of the population to a northern African origin), existence of the oft-mentioned fair traits in modern northern African populations, and a related citation.

Throughout the article, there still remains some rather archaic language stemming from the original Britannica piece dating from about a hundred years ago (Until recently, it read as follows: it is due to the perseverance of D. Aquilino Padran, a priest of Las Palmas, that anything about the inscription on the island Hierro has been brought to light. In 1878 Dr R. Verneau discovered in the ravines of Las Balos some genuine Libyan inscriptions. Without exception the rock inscriptions have proved to be Numidic...). It's nice and flowery and all, but not really Wiki-propriate.

I'm much less concerned with the passions surrounding the racial background of the Canary Islanders than I am with presenting coherently what was observed, what has been theorized, and what has been established as fact. Twalls 07:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

---

"...however, it is generally accepted by modern Spanish historians that the Guanches as a whole, were dark or tan-skinned, dark-haired and dark-eyed, much like present day North Africans."

I think this statement is problematic. The Guanches as a whole? Which historians claim this? Also, are the historians referred to Spanish, or historians of Spanish history? Is this a question for historians or geneticists? Is there a reason for such a blanket dismissal of the original accounts? Citations, please - if they can make the case, great! Thanks! Twalls — Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Weaponry

I have changed this section:

1. The weaponry wasn't similar to the southern european paleolithic, but, to north África tradition, adaptated to the canarian enviroment (no metals) and evolutionated under the influence of medieval europeans. 2. There weren't differences in these matters between islands. 3. The weaponry is similar in all islands, but there light difference as i show. 4. No axes in Gran Canaria.

-Fco — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.134.157 (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

disease

Roy Porter suggests that the Guanches had little resistance to European diseases such as smallpox, which the Spanish brought to the islands, and this was a major contributor to their rapid population decline - there appears to be no mention of this in the article 192.250.97.6 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Chris H 4 Dec 2006

This is an excellent point. Thanks for bringing it up! Twalls 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a brief mention of the role of epidemics in reducing the Guanche population. This point is also discussed in Crosby, Ecological Imperialism.Chris k 00:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Fair traits" (Appearance and Origins)

The term "fair traits" is a bit puzzling. Fairness can be a trait, but in English you don't usually have "fair traits" or "dark traits." I suspect that the writer means "fair skin and fair hair" or some combination of traits normally associated with a supposed European or "Caucasian" type. This should be clarified with better terminology. Chris k 00:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Guanches

There seems to be alot of confusion and ingorance about this subject in the English wikipedia. If any editors speak Spanish, I suggest you erase the whole relevant section and translate it directly from Spanish wiki which is more accurate and elaborated as well as better sourced.--Burgas00 18:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right, "this!" is more elaborate and well referenced? Permit me to raise an eyebrow in disbelief at your baseless assertion. I further strongly suggest you stop trying to erase sourced sections in English wikipedia and instead try to use some of those sources to get spanish wikipedia up to speed. The only thing of value I found there was this external link, which states things such as: "no debieron de sorprenderse mucho al encontrar a un pueblo rubio, de ojos azules, habitante de las cavernas y viviendo todavía en la Edad de Piedra.", They probably were not very surprised to encounter a people with blonde hair, blue eyes, living in caves at a stone age level.

"Ambos grupos, los trogloditas salvajes y los agricultores civilizados, eran rubios, de ojos azules, y de estatura muy alta, como los individuos de más pura raza germánica." Both groups, the hunter-gatherers and the farmers, were blond, with blue eyes, and very high stature, such as individuals of the purer Germanic race. "Cuando los últimos guanches libres ya habían desaparecido y el resto de la población, después de bautizada, se hubo mezclado con los españoles inmigrados, los normandos y los norteafricanos hasta formar un pueblo mestizo todavía bastante rubio y de tez clara." When the last free Guance was dead, and the remaing population had been christened, they were mixed with the immigrant Spaniards, the northeners and north-africans until forming a racially mixed people still today rather fair haired and with clear complexion. The text the seems to go on to list some of the theories of the Guanche origins, invluding the Berber theory. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont know what your level of understanding of Spanish is but that article is a historiography of the debunked myths developed in Europe (largely in pre nazi germany) on the origin of Guanches. It states clearly that all those theories are complete baloney.--Burgas00 19:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the complexion of Guanches and modern Canarians: Guanches were a 100% berber population, no credible source advances any other possibility. It is proven by genetics, archeology and linguistics. Guanches were on average a dark haired and skinned people with a relatively large minority of people with fair complexions as is typical of north african populations. However, the frequency of people with these traits was higher than in modern north africa due to: 1) insularity which strengthens recessive genes and thus phenotypes (such as blondism), 2) the absence (until the Spanish conquest) of subsaharan admixture which exists at varying levels in present day North west african populations.

Modern day canarians have a mix of Iberian and Guanche ancestry and a smaller degree of northern european ancestry as a result of immigration from places such as holland, which occurred after the Spanish conquest, aswell as an even smaller level of North African and African ancestry, particularly in the Easternmost islands as a result of slavery. The Spanish element is, nevertheless, the dominant one. --Burgas00 19:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish version is more compact and does make some good points, but saying "la total procedencia del norte de África de la población guanche" is rather assumptive. I think it's safe to state "a significant or majority contribution of Northern African peoples" but you can't say 100% with absolute metaphysical certitude. I will add something about linguistic similarities between Guanche and Berber numbering systems. Twalls 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well where else do you think they came from? Or do you think a minority of them just crawled out of the sea? If all sources affirm that guanches were a berber population as proven by every relevant field of science, why imply otherwise? If you say "a majority" you are implying that some of them were not from North Africa which is, in plain language, make-believe. All you will acheive is give support to fantasy-theories on vandals and vikings... --Burgas00 15:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If there are theories of Vandal influence, then it is our duty to include them. It is not our task to decide which theory is right, only to collect and present what scholars think. I believe however that the Viking theory is your imagination getting the better of you. Now if you bother reading some of the sources that you tried to erase, you'll note that the DNA evidence points at not one but several migrations of Caucasian peoples from north-Africa, possibly at different times. This would probably explain the presence of different types of aborigines on the Canary islands. Further, the DNA difference shows that although the original Canarians seem to be related with the Berber people of North Africa, there are important differences in their DNA that indicate that todays Berber people in north Africa are not all that closely related to the original North African populations that colonized the Canary islands. Therefore it would be better to say that DNA indicates that the Canary islands were populated by people living in north Africa 2,500 years ago, these ancient North Africans are to some degree related to the modern day Berbers of North Africa. [2] [3] [4]--Stor stark7 ^Talk 18:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

My friend there ARE no theories on the Vandals there WERE theories on Vandals in the same way that there were theories that the world was flat.

Quoting your source:

At a genetic level, the Berber origin of the Guanches, the aboriginal population of the Canary Islands, and their survival after the Spanish occupation, has been inferred from the high frequency of U6 lineages in its modern population (Table 2), similar to that of North Africa.

I dont understand why you are having so much trouble facing up to established fact.

--Burgas00 19:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I see that reading the full text of the source was beyond you. Please try, and maybe you'll understand. --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to take pity on you, here you have them served.

"Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent."

"What remains enigmatic of the indubitable North African prehistoric colonization of the Archipelago is that it was carried out by people whose U6 lineages mainly belonged to the U6b subclade that has only been spotted in very low frequencies in the modern African populations of Morocco, Algeria, Senegal and Nigeria (Table 2). Moreover, the U6b and U6c insular haplotypes belong to the autochthonous U6b1 and U6c1 branches differing by substitutions 16163 and 16129, respectively, from all their African counterparts. As the most probable arrival of the first prehistoric Canarian settlers was around 2,500 ya, it is highly improbable that these mutations occurred on the islands. Therefore, we expected to find these Canarian lineages in some place of Africa. However, after extensive sampling they have still not been detected. It is possible that they are present somewhere in low frequencies but, in any case, this phylogeographic distribution suggests that Northwest Africa suffered important demic displacements in the past."

"Two autochthonous U6 lineages (U6b1 and U6c1), present today in the islands, attest the survival of those aboriginal North Africans until nowadays. The fact that these Canarian lineages have not been detected in Africa and that, in contrast to the ubiquitous U6a and U6a1, the U6b and U6c lineages are scarcely spotted in present African populations, may be clues of past important demographic movements in this western area."

So Yes, the ancient Canarians are related to the modern Berber, but they also have huge DNA differences indicating that you really cant say that todays Berbers are equal to the people who colonized the islands. There seem to have been huge population changes in North Africa since then. Next time, don't stop reading just because you found something that seemed to be useful to your POV.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have read that article a few months ago and dont worry population genetics is not difficult to understand.

The most common subclade of U6 in the canary islands in U6a which happens to be also the more common in modern north african berbers. The less frequent subclades U6c and u6b as you say are of authoctonous "origin" and have not yet been found in north africa (they probably will be at one point). This means that berbers started arriving 2500 years ago (which is not long ago in berber history and is nothing in population genetics) and continued arriving in more recent times.

Thus saying that Berbers are "to a degree" related to Guanches is somewhat of an understatement. Guanches were Berbers... full stop. That some of the less frequent lineages of (Berber) haplotype U6 found among Guanches are no longer common in North Africa is not contradictory to this straightforward fact.

And please show me the "huge genetic differences" between Guanches and Berbers. It seems from this statement that you do not have much understanding of genetics.

--Burgas00 19:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1. The Proto-Berbers that composed the Guanche arrived 2,500 years ago. The only berbers that "continued arriving in more recent times" were as slaves after the spanish colonisation.
• 2. When you say that .."2500 years ago (which is not long ago in Berber history and is nothing in population genetics" it is obvious that you haven't gotten the point of the text. The proto-Berbers that contributed to the Guances were in time at least partly displaced from north Africa by other population groups. We are talking war and population replacements here, not the steady mutation rate of a population staying put at one place without outside interference.

"Two autochthonous derivatives of these clades (U6b1 and U6c1) indicate the arrival of North African settlers to the Canarian Archipelago in prehistoric times, most probably due to the Saharan desiccation. The absence of these Canarian lineages nowadays in Africa suggests important demographic movements in the western area of this Continent." The Sahara was dessicated by 2,500 BC, so there's a possibility the 2,500 "ya" is supposed to mean BC and not years ago. Since you seem to claim to be so good at population genetics, please explain how we are supposed to interpret important demographic movements. Other than that the people who used to live there don't live there no more. Just as most of the people who used to live in Argentina don't live there no more, although they probably to some degree can be traced in the genes of the current population.

"Moreover, the U6b and U6c insular haplotypes belong to the autochthonous U6b1 and U6c1 branches differing by substitutions 16163 and 16129, respectively, from all their African counterparts. As the most probable arrival of the first prehistoric Canarian settlers was around 2,500 ya, it is highly improbable that these mutations occurred on the islands. Therefore, we expected to find these Canarian lineages in some place of Africa. However, after extensive sampling they have still not been detected. It is possible that they are present somewhere in low frequencies but, in any case, this phylogeographic distribution suggests that "Northwest Africa suffered important demic displacements in the past."

"In summary, the phylogeography, nucleotide diversity, and coalescence ages of U6 lineages show that this clade came back to Africa in Paleolithic times. Its most probable origin was the Near East and not Europe, and since then, its presence in North Africa has been permanent. The focus of the first African expansion, detected by the spread of U6a, was Northwest Africa reaching the Near East also in the Paleolithic. The posterior U6a1 radiation most probably occurred in Northeast Africa again extending to the Near East. This movement is correlated in time with the attributed origin and expansion of Afroasiatic languages. This U6a1 wave also arrived to the Maghrib, the Northwest African margin, where the more localized U6b and U6c lineages were spreading. This movement is in time frame with the Capsian culture. Based on archaeological and anthropological grounds, it has been speculated that these incomers slowly pushed away the aboriginal residents [2]. It could be in that time when U6b reached the south of the Iberian Peninsula from where it was displaced to the north where it persists today. The U6b and U6c diaspora also reached the Atlantic fringe from where they sailed to the Canary Islands. Two autochthonous U6 lineages (U6b1 and U6c1), present today in the islands, attest the survival of those aboriginal North Africans until nowadays. The fact that these Canarian lineages have not been detected in Africa and that, in contrast to the ubiquitous U6a and U6a1, the U6b and U6c lineages are scarcely spotted in present African populations, may be clues of past important demographic movements in this western area."

The people who colonized the Canaries are mainly gone, replaced in North Africa by immigration or ethnic cleansing (albeit by a population with similar background), what remains in North Africa is at most their genetic cousins. I would liken it to the replacement of the Germans of Königsberg with the Russians of Kaliningrad. Being europeans of Indo-european origins the two populations probably share the same level of DNA similarities as the guanche and modern berbers, but they are not the same.

Just calling the Guanche "Berbers" is plainly wrong, as it implies a one-to one relationship between the ancient and modern populations. Proto-berber is much better.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a few points:

1. . The Guanches began arriving in several waves between the 5th century BC and the beginning of the Christian era. If you do not know even this I don't know why you are even discussing on this article.
2. . The desertification of the Sahara was an ongoing process not a sudden occurrence and the two factors which are used to explain the Berber colonisation of the island was this process and the push of the Roman Empire.
3. . What remains in North Africa were people with berber genetic markers (Y-chromosome haplotype E-M81 and MtDna U6) and speaking a Berber language. Why one or two particular Mtdna U6 lineages are no longer found in continental Africa is not enough to assume "ethnic cleansing". Perhaps it was never that common to begin with.
4. . Guanches spoke a berber language. Berbers are extremely diverse linguistically, but all their languages are related and all are considered Ethnic Berbers.
5. . Any population on a continent may have suffered changes over the past thousand years. Tuareg berbers have greatly mixed with Subsaharan Africans and Algerian Qabyles have mixed with Mediterranean Europeans and Arabs. This does not mean that they cease to be berbers. How can the fact that Guanches had NOT mixed with other peoples until the arrival of the Spaniards make them less Berber? It is nonsensical. In any case they are more berber!
6. . Finally, I have nothing against the use of the word proto berber, but such a word tends to denote much more distant relationship than the historical (rather than prehistorical) link between North African and Guanche berbers. Its like saying that Jews during the Roman Empire were Proto-Jews!!!

Thats pretty much it. Read some more on the subject and, unless you have some POV which you would like to impose, I am sure you will eventually agree with me. --Burgas00 00:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC) --Burgas00 00:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you state "Guanches began arriving in several waves between the 5th century BC and the beginning of the Christian era." Why 500 BC as a start date? I've heard much earlier dates -- ca. 3000 BC. Furthermore, the Sahara started drying out much earlier - I don't think you can exclude the possibility of the Canaries being settled at any time from the last LGM forward - it's just that evidence of larger scale settlements starts showing up in the first millenium BC. Proto-Berber is probably more accurate, but it would be even more accurate to say Guanches and Berbers shared common ancestry. To say they were "Berber" would be off temporally, because you would be ascribing the Guanche peoples with a nationality that probably didn't exist at the time of initial settlement. It's not at all like saying Jews during the Roman empire were proto-Jews. To say Guanches were Berbers would be to claim that the Vandals or Visigoths were Germans. How do you feel about Mechta-Afalou? Cheers, Twalls 03:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Twalls 03:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there is no evidence whatsoever of any human presence in the canary islands before that time so I assume, as do all the other sources, that that is the time of their first arrival! If you want to speculate on possible earlier arrivals that is simply OR. Considering that Guanches were separated from other Berbers between 2500 and 1500 years ago, the paralelism with the Jewish diaspora is quite adequate, except that unlike the Jews, the Berbers did not mix with non-berber peoples until the arrival of the Spanish. Vandals and Visigoths were not Germans but they were Germanic. Saying Berber is akin to saying Germanic, Slavic or Turkic. Have a look at the subdivisions of the Berber languages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berber_languages

Berber is not a "nationality" it is an ethnicity which is subdivided into a number of subgroups spread throughout northern Africa. They call themselves Amazight and consider Guanches as a Berber people. They were simply unfortunate to not recieve a single state of their own in the period of French decolonisation.

As for Mechta Afalou and the Capsian diffusion:

Modern Berbers are carriers of the Y-chromosome E3b Haplotype E-M81 originating in East Africa around 10,000 years ago and the much older MtDna haplogroup U6 (of Paleolithic origin) which probably originated somewhere in Western Eurasia. U6 has thus been in Northwest Africa for over 30,000 years. The presence of E-M81 would correspond with the Capsian diffusion moving Westwards from East Africa and displacing the "Mechta Afalou" while mantaining the female carried line between 10,000 and 8,000 years ago. It is thought that it was the Capsian culture which brought the modern Afroasiatic berber languages to North Western Africa and these people, at this time, could be rightly called proto-berbers.

The Guanches are carriers of both Y-chromosome (Capsian) E-M81 and Paleolithic MtDNA U6, just as are modern berbers in Africa. Both are the result of the mixture of these two peoples 10,000 years ago, and both are (or were) as such "modern berbers".

--Burgas00 11:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• 1 You stated that This means that berbers started arriving 2500 years ago (which is not long ago in berber history and is nothing in population genetics) and continued arriving in more recent times.. If you're going to get unpleasant, I might take you more seriously if you do so while getting your facts straight, it might give you more credibility. If you want to pretend that you by more recent times meant by the time of Christ, then go right ahead.

• 2 According to Sahara the drying out started by 6000 BC, and by 2,500 BC Northen Sahary was as dry as today while southern Sahara became desertified more slowly. You saying people hung around in the desert for 2000 years before deciding, hey, lets go to the islands? And if contact with Rome pushed them out, how come they had such low technical development?

• 3 The U6 lineage is found from the Near East, to North West Africa, including the Sahel-belt and Ethiopia, and also in Sisily, Spain and Portugal. Are all these people then Berber, from the Syrians and Ethiopians to the Kenyans? Having the U6 does not make you Berber, it just makes you related to the populations of North africa and the middle east. Besides, the influence of Berber populations seems to have been large after the Spanish colonisation. As this site points out [5] "Berber slaves arrived in the eastern Canary Islands, the `moriscos' who served as crewmembers on Canary ships. By the end of the 16th century, it is estimated that the `moriscos' constituted a majority of the population of Lanzarote." Also your comment "Why one or two particular Mtdna U6 lineages are no longer found in continental Africa is not enough to assume "ethnic cleansing". Perhaps it was never that common to begin with. ". If they were not very common to begin with, how come the Canary frequency of U6b1 is as high as 8.22%?. As you've pointed out, 2500 years is not much time for genetic drift to eliminate it in the north african populations. U6b is found in 13% of canarians, but only very rarely in populations in Morocco, Algeria, Senegal and Nigeria. That is quite a lot of difference, no matter how you try to downplay it.

• 4 Language: Sure, most seem to agree that the randon scraps of Guanche that remain point to relation with Berber languages. Even if that turns out to be correct; So what? As far as I know most ethnic Berber speak Arabic nowadays. Speaking a language doesn't automatically mean you belong to a specific ethnic group, languages and genes need not travel together. The Indo-european language family is spread in Eurasia from Iceland through Persia to India. How closely related are all those people do you think just because they share a language with common roots? Or the Finnish and Hungarian peoples who speak a language from an asian language family that stretches all the way through siberia. Just because their languages have a common ancestry I would be careful about calling a Finnish person Asian, especially considering the strong component of Swedish genes in the population.

• 5 In responce to this " Thus saying that Berbers are "to a degree" related to Guanches is somewhat of an understatement. Guanches were Berbers... full stop. That some of the less frequent lineages of (Berber) haplotype U6 found among Guanches are no longer common in North Africa is not contradictory to this straightforward fact. And please show me the "huge genetic differences" between Guanches and Berbers. It seems from this statement that you do not have much understanding of genetics.". First, as you should know by now, U6 is not exclusively "Berber". If you had actually read the text you'd know that, especially with your trumpeted "genetics knowledge". Second, U6 is present in the canarians in the following proportions 1.3%, 13.0% and 3.3% for U6a, U6b and U6c. I would say that that makes the virtual absence of U6b in Berber populations quite significant, as did those who wrote the study. I'm sadened to se you use the words "That some of the less frequent lineages...", when those are in fact the most frequent lineages. I'm however glad you saw som sence and accepted that the Berber populations have changed by mixing with other peoples, but simply mixing just lowers the frequency. To have the most common one in the founding population (U6b = 13%) virtually dissapear is indicative of more serious population changes. Third: "In any case they are more berber!" Thay is just plain wrong. This sounds like we are talking of a population in noth africa that has been negatively diluted. The Guaches came from a population in North africa that was then or sometime thereafter displaced. The populations that displaced the founders then mixed with other populations, creating the modern distinct Berber peoples of Today. There were no "Berber" in the modern sence when the Canaries were populated!

• 6 The DNA shows that there is quite a distance between them, even though they are related. As to the Jews, tha analogy does not apply. Judaism is largely a religion, no matter how much nazis and other have tried to make a "race" issue of it. There are ethnicly distinct groups of jews, with shared DNA characteristics (such as hereditary diceases), but I strongly doubt that the DNA of the modern day jews who ended up in Europe has much in common with the Jews who left Israel 2000 years ago. For example, as the study says, the north European Ashkenazic Jews picked up the U6 during their stay in Spain. No group is insolar. Genetically speaking I would guess that it would infact be correct from a hereditary sence to call the original jews proto-jews, who then branched out into various jewish subtypes such as the Ashkenazic, if it werent for the fact that it is mainly a religion!!! (I even heard somewhere, probably completely baseless, that the "jewish nose" was in fact picked up in Armenia on their way to Europe).

--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Stor Sark I don't want to get into a fight over this and you are right that at times my tone may have sounded unpleasant. Albeit, so has yours and from the very beginning of this discussion. First of all I want to admit that you are right, I did make a mistake confusing the different lineages of U6.

Responding to your points one by one:

1. Yes I did mean up until the beginning Christian era, evidently.
2. The issue of the lack of navigational skills and low level of technological advance is a mystery. One theory is that they are the descendants of North African prisoners of the Romans and/or the Numidian Kingdom of Juba I. This would explain how they got to the islands while not posessing navigational skills.
3. The typically berber marker U6 is found throughout the extremely wide area of North Africa where Berbers historically lived. Its presence, at lower frequencies, in adjoining areas is only a natural result of historical population exchanges. Its presence in Spain is probably the result of both the Capsian diffusion during the Neolithic as well as the Islamic colonisation of Spain, fundamentally carried out by Berbers from North Africa.
4. Speaking Berber is the ONLY thing which defines modern berber ethnicity. All North Africans (including Arabic speakers) largely share berber genetic markers but only Berber speakers (there are between 14 and 25 million of them throughout North Africa) are Berbers. Berber, as I have mentioned before, is not a language family equivalent to "IndoEuropean" as you say. The equivalent to IndoEuropean would be "Afro Asiatic" which includes the Berber languages, the Semitic languages (Arabic, hebrew etc...), Chadic, Cushitic and Omotic languages among others. The Berber language of families is akin to saying Romance languages for IndoEuropeans. There are 6 known Berber languages: These would be Guanche, Qabyle, Tamacheq, Zenaga, Tuareg, Northern Berber (Tamazight) and Eastern Berber.
5. Maybe so but U6 is a northafrican berber marker. Which berber tribe they came from (North Africa is a big place and there are many of them) is a different question. Although I concede that there is much to talk about on the origin of these particular lineages of U6b and U6c, I doubt they were ever very common in Northern Africa and were perhaps very isolated lineages in some coastal settlement, explaining their absence today.
6. Yes there are differences between modern day berbers (you only have to compare a Qbyle from Eastern Algeria with a Tuareg in Niger), again because North Africa is a very big place and different berber tribes have been in contact with different peoples and civilizations.

I still dont understand the logic for denying Guanches Berber ethnicity if they spoke Berber and had North African Genetic markers... --Burgas00 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't want a fight either, and I appologice if I came out to strong, it's just that wikipedia seems to be littered with trolls that try to pretend to be "reasonable". (I do admit that I seem to have an inclination to end up in controversial pages to where trolls tend to flock). I don't deny the berber relationship, but I think proto-berber is a far better term for the founding population. Not even the Berber seem to call themselves Berber by the way. The DNA article mentions large demic displacements (or thereabouts, cant be bothered to look up the exact words right now) in the population that created the guanches. That does not seem to fit in with some coastal setlements that dissapeared, especially not since we seem to be talking about migrations that occured to the Canaries over a period of 500 years. Seems the setling population would have had to be larger and more robust than some coastal villages. As to what constitutes a Berber, some would dissagree with you Arabized Berber, the people seem to be roughly the same, just that the have taken the Arab culture as their own[6]. But never mind, I can't be bothered anymore. Call them Berber if you will --Stor stark7 ^Talk 21:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Both of you have made good contributions on the talk page and have made very good points, although I would lean towards using the term proto-Berber. I would also caution against referring to Guanche as a Berber language, although this might be a little bit complicated. While the few bits we know of do share affinities with different Berber languages, they also share elements with other Afro-Asiatic languages not found in Berber. To me, this would seem to indicate an origin that may predate the formation of later Berber languages. In fact, its pure Berber affiliation is questioned by some linguists (not necessarily by me - with some reservations, I think it might very well be a Berber or proto-Berber tongue). Also, it stands to be pointed out that the Lybico-Berber script found in the form of petroglyphs on a number of islands is not necessarily associated with the Guanches.

My surmisal is that there was an original proto-Berber population that came after the Sahara started drying out, followed much later by waves of visitation and settlement in larger numbers by other Mediterraneans and north Africans (Phoenicians, Numidians, Romans, Berbers). A big question that remains is when exactly did migration/visitation of the islands cease. To what extent did the visitors affect island culture? Did they impose their Berber language on the proto-Berber Guanches, much like the Norse coming to England and imposing many elements of one Germanic tongue on top of another, effectively merging the two? There are also petroglyphs (found in different places than the Lybico-Berber script) of boats with masts... things the Guanches did not have at the time of Spanish colonization.

The bottom line is that we don't know for certain all the answers to these questions, and it would be wise to choose our terms carefully and be measured in our conclusions. The Guanches were killed or assimilated, and studies of their culture, etc. have always been sparse. For God's sake, the majority of the Guanche mummies were ground up to be sold as aphrodesiacs! Thanks, Twalls 00:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I agree. The only reason I really intervened in this article is that I was afraid too much weight was being given to now discredited theories. Many of these theories had, in the past, strong political implications. Albeit, I am neither Canarian nor berber and certainly not Guanche ;-) but intellectual rigour in the article's content must be mantained.--Burgas00 21:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Paragraph and Sources in Origins Section

The FamilyTreeDNA, Biomed Central, archaeology.org and two Columbus' journal excerpts references are hardly garbage, Burgas00, but yes, the others are of little value. They also are references for other items in the main article, not just that paragraph. They should be properly formatted as per Wikpedia style. I think the paragraph should be put back in, even if it needs to be re-written. I'll also try reformat the better links as mentioned. Twalls 23:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think more serious sources can be found, although I may have missed some good ones. I only read the first 4 and then gave up and deleted them all. --Burgas00 20:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Pliny, Hanno and the mauritanians

Pliny don't talk about Hanno but about the mauretanian expedition of the I century BC, as you can read here:

http://www.ing.iac.es/PR/lapalma/pliny.html

--Bentaguayre 21:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Arrival

Today any author defend any date before 500 BC, there are two main hypothesis, phoenician colonization around 500 BC, or roman colonization after 200 BC. In the past some authors proposed a 1000 or before date but with the time and the dates avalaible this hypothesis have been taking off. --Bentaguayre 16:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't completely understand what you're saying. Phoenician colonization and Roman colonization are not mutually exclusive, nor are they synonymous with arrival of the Guanches to the islands. From the citations I've seen, artifacts have been dated to circa 1000 BC. These are the earliest finds to date, although there could have been earlier arrivals. Twalls 19:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The first without doubt sign of human activity in the islands dat of around 250 BC with possible evidences of around 500, and an old date today put off from Tenerife around 800 BC. Anything from beforr those dates. Phoenician and roman hypothesis of course aren't mutually exclusive (some people defend an only roman hypothesis), but the main and original hypothesis was phoenician or roman, with many variations after that. --Bentaguayre 23:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to be inclusive of the earlier dates because that is where the research is pointing. The ancestors of the Guanches may have very well arrived earlier than the assumed dates. Of course, there are theories that the Phoenicians or the Romans brought the ancestors of the islanders as slaves or prisoners, but then again these are just competing theories which are no more valid than the theory that they came on their own at an earlier date. I leave you with this quote from Jose Garcia's paper, which I think gives us a more objective perspective...

"Sin embargo, las fechas más antiguas obtenidas se remontan al primer milenio AC17. Así, se ha documentado la presencia humana en Tenerife, en los siglos VIII AC18, VI AC19, IV AC20 y I AC21. En Gran Canaria, en el siglo III AC22. Y en La Palma, en el siglo III AC23. En el resto del Archipiélago las fechas obtenidas se adentran todas en nuestra era (Arco et al. 1992). En base a estos datos —y teniendo en cuenta que las fechas encontradas para Tenerife, Gran Canaria y La Palma corresponden a estadios de asentamiento con una adaptación al medio relativamente avanzada— la cronología que se maneja actualmente sitúa el primer poblamiento de las Islas Canarias a principios del primer milenio AC, sin descartar la segunda mitad del milenio anterior (Onrubia 1992)."

Thanks, Twalls 14:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen those dates right, and as i said before many authors don't agree with the very first dates of Tenerife, but is better for the article accept it because some others agree, so i recommend to show the mainstream view of 500 BC and to add possibly before, but not before 1000 BC like was in the article in the past, because anybody will support it today (in the past the main supporter was Celso M. de Guzmán). regards --Bentaguayre 19:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Guanches, a unique race that is extinct now

When the first spaniards reached the canary islands, the local guanches showed amazement and surprise because they believed that they were the only living humans in the world and rest of the world had sunk beneath the sea. Many people believe that canary islands, aswell as the azores and cape verde Islands are the remaining hilltops of the lost continent of 'Atlantis'. When the spanish arrived on the canaries, they found large 'cyclopean' buildings, but the locals only knew how to make huts out of straw and wood. They were also small pyramids and even the mummies were found! The spanish gave the description of guanche women as follows:'the native women are fair in complexion, with blonde hair and blue eyes and they are as beautiful as the European women' Another fact is that their language and rituals were very different from the world. Maybe there was a 'lost continent' in the atlantic, and guanches were the descendants of the civilisation of that island, but they lost the knowledge that their forefathers had. Well many historeans say that 'Atlantis' was just a myth, although no evidence has been found but the possibilty of a sunken continent can exist, because after the ice age the sea level did gradually rise, another possibilty is that there was a sudden rise in the level due to a presusmed meteor that struck the ice caps(that resulted in sudden melt down) or the continent itself, another theory is the 'shifting of poles'. Scientists suggest that early poles had different locations and there was a sudden change in the poles of the earth resulting in mass flooding of the earth, creating a worldwide myth of noah and his counterparts(gilgamesh,manu,aztlan,atlantis e.t.c). According to me the guanches are not related to Europeans or the Africans but instead they were a unique race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.178.96 (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. But who said that "Guanches never interacted with other people before the Spaniards"? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about the Atlantis talk but it is true that at the LGM sea levels were lower and the Canaries were that much closer to the continent at the time, theoretically making travel there much easier (making an arrival prior to 500 BC much more likely - I've cited studies that indicate the first millennium BC or earlier).

The idea that Canarian natives were another race is problematic, since using race to strictly delineate populations is no longer regarded as very meaningful. Genetic studies so far have indicated genetic proximity to North African/Mediterranean populations. They could have arrived in waves, been brought there, had some outside contributions over time, or the population could have come from an uneven mix of all of these. The problem is that there is a lack of comprehensive study and thorough samplings. Twalls (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I wrote - I don't mean to imply that since sea levels were lower during the Last Glacial Maximum, it was easier to reach the Canaries in 1500 or 1000 or 500 BC, dates long past that time. What the lower sea levels mean is that the islands could have been readily accessible in the more distant past, i.e. 5000 BC and before. We can't exclude the possibility of early visitation. The point is, we don't know who the first humans were to set foot on the islands. Twalls (talk) 01:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Modern-Day Guanches

Are there people today who claim to be mainly of Guanche ancestroy? If not, when did the last of the Gunaches cease to exist? I realize most assimilated with the Spanish settlers, but at what point did their culture cease to have a relevant presence? -98.221.133.96 (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

New editor and minor edits

I have just put in a citation in the History section (to Pliny, Natural History). I am English and live on Tenerife and am very interested in the Guanches. I've also put an external link to a local website which has a great deal of - unfortunately unreferenced - information about the Guanches. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so do excuse me if I've done anything incorrectly - tell me, and I will try to do better next time!--Guanche Lady (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we look forward to your contributions! Your cautious approach shows you'll be a good editor. Twalls (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those kind words! Something that I might be able to do usefully is to translate some of the info that is on the Spanish Wikipedia site. I know that this was suggested earlier but, as I've yet to read all this talk page (my own PC is down with a virus - I'm connecting via a friend's who is letting me use his for an hour or so for a few vital things), I don't know if anyone has begun working on this. If they have and would like a collaborator, I'm here! I'm not sure how Wikipedia would assess my level of Spanish, as I've learnt it informally. I certainly wouldn't feel competant to translate from English into Spanish, but the Spanish Guanche pages seem to be within my level of competance to translate into English.--Guanche Lady (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

mencey links back to exactly the same place in this article... Paul S (talk) 02:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Gods

I believe that deberia someone to edit the article of the gods: Achamán, Chaxiraxi, Guayota and Magec, aquie I leave some information them of them:

Achamán: Is the name started to the supreme god of the people guanche of Original inhabitant of the Canary Isles to the island of Tenerife.

Chaxiraxi: Is the name original inhabitant of the Canary Isles of an aboriginal goddess, who means in Castilian Madre del Sol. It is the name that receives in 1430 the image of the Virgin of appeared Candelaria this year in Güímar, in the island of Tenerife (Canaries, Spain). The goddess Chaxiraxi was one of the principal goddesses of the pantheon original inhabitant of the Canary Isles.

Guayota: Was the name that was receiving one of the mythological malignant entities in which there believed the original inhabitants of the Canary Isles, former settlers of Canaries. It was the principal malignant deity of the original inhabitants of the Canary Isles, the demon. To Guayota it his(her,your) demons' huésted was represented often as a black dog accompanied of the Tibicenas.

Magec: Was the god of the Sun and the light for the former settlers of the Canary archipelago, the original inhabitants of the Canary Isles. It is a question of one of the principal divinities.

I hope that someone edits it, me harian a great favor. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.250.245 (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Anachronism in the Intro

"Europeans saw their culture as being neolithic when Europeans colonized the Canary Islands in the Middle Ages." It's not very likely that people in the middle ages saw the culture as "neolithic" when the concept and the word hadn't been invented yet. I don't see much point in saying what medieval Europeans thought about them anyway, especially without a citation. I'm going to clean up some of the English too, though there are some places where the wording is totally incomprehensible and I can't figure out what it was supposed to mean. Tarchon (talk) 03:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The entry originally said something else and it was partially changed without noting this fact. This happens quite often on Wikipedia. Previously, the entry said the Guanches were at a Stone Age or neolithic level of development when they were encountered by continental Europeans; it didn't say the Europeans who discovered them described them as neolithic. I agree about the incomprehensible recent additions. I would have lent a hand but I've been out of commission for the last few weeks. Thanks, Twalls (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Guayota is the king of evil geniuses.

See it on the page in Spanish and their religion, also is called Guanche Mythology: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guayota — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.46.242.252 (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

• My friend - A genie es un ser fantastico. A genius es un persona con mucha inteligencia. Twalls (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal

The Guanches were described as Aboriginal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.40.238.8 (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Animism

The religion or mythology guanche was animistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.197.65 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

And I think it should do a special article on the mythology Guanche, because it is very complex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.206.166 (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

- Guanches and North Africa were polytheistic like the rest of mediterranean. There's no trace of animism.--Léandros (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

incorrect spelling

There are many spelling errors throughout this entire article. I would assume that when an article is written for public use to gain knowledge, the person writting it should double check their work. Little things like that make me question the information that I am reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peachjubilee (talk • contribs) 22:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Undoing edit revision 662515095 by 88.10.71.134

I have undone the above revision. The information appears to be well-intentioned, but there are serious language problems with it, to the point of incoherence. Sample sentences:

It is a little known feature of the aboriginals, but it has proven both archaeologically as chronic who performed both animal sacrifices and human sacrifices.

So in Tenerife during the summer solstice, the Guanches were accustomed to slay livestock and arrogarlo part of a bonfire until the smoke rise to the sky. 850 C (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I've already arranged.--83.51.156.252 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing matrilineality from this article

I am actually undoing (part of) an edit by User:Bentaguayre done at 12:49, 24 November 2010, where that editor inserted the phrase "by matrilineality" in this Guanches article's section "Political system", without providing the required source reference.

I have Googled this topic, Guanches, thoroughly, plus checking Library of Congress Country Studies's avenues, The World Factbook's avenues, and much more. I am unable to find any real or actual sources for matrilineality among the Guanches, who effectively were wiped out by the Spanish conquest of the Canary Islands in 1494-96, more than 500 years ago. The above-mentioned editor presumably was similarly unsuccessful, but was willing to violate Wikipedia's requirements for reliability of its encyclopedic information. I myself need and support the reliability of WP's information, and am glad that most editors do. Thus I am removing the unreliable phrase. If that editor happens to be descended from the Guanches, they perhaps could provide that information instead of the usual source reference, but they did not. That editor inserted the phrase without any support whatsoever. For7thGen (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, citation has been provided. You can find tons of them in Google Books. --Bentaguayre (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bentaguayre:, could you please cite it properly? Just an url isn't enough. I'll post guidance to your talk page. Doug Weller talk 12:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, Bentaguayre did provide a good 2014 book on current archaeology research in the Canary Islands, as his/her source ref, satisfying WP requirements just fine, with the help of other WP editors to get this Google Books source working well. The 2014 book simply makes the matrilineality statement, without any support of course, but that provides the only reliability possible in this case. So I am content, and the topic is closed. Now I'll undo my Guanches deletion in the Matrilineality article as well. For7thGen (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)