DNA of Iberians from Europe

[Pax Augusta]

Link is not fully visible, plus such a figure does not take into account all the slaves in Portugal and Spain who were exported to the American possessions of these empires.

Tamar Herzog (Harvard University), How Did Early-Modern Slaves in Spain Disappear? The Antecedents, 2012

(...) But was slavery a purely colonial affair, as these statements indicate?

Despite this general amnesia, slaves and the descendants of slaves were present in early-modern Spain, and their numbers were not particularly small. To cite just a few examples, we know that in mid-sixteenth-century Seville 7.4 percent of censused inhabitants were slaves and that between 1682 and 1729 the slave population of Cádiz was extremely large, making up perhaps as much as 15 percent of the total urban population. In other cities, such as Málaga, Granada, Las Palmas, Huelva, and Palos de la Frontera, as many as one in ten residents may have been slaves. Between 1539 and 1699, 1,384 slave children were baptized in the small Andalucian town of Lucena, with an average of 400 children every thirty years. Similar numbers may have been true also for Córdoba. Historians who studied slavery in Spain thus concluded that Renaissance and perhaps even early-modern Spain may have had the largest African population in Europe.(...)

(...) Not only did Spain have a huge population of slaves, a population that by the late sixteenth century was mostly composed of individuals of African descent, and not only were slaves present (although in varying numbers) all over the peninsula and in all social milieus, but also their numbers did not necessarily drop at the end of the sixteenth century as historians once believe. Recent research suggests that slavery and the presence of Africans continued to be important factors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and even into the early nineteenth century. Indications for this continuity are everywhere to be found: in 1837 the Cortes debated a law to abolish slavery in the peninsula; and in 1851 the proposal for a new civil code included the issue of peninsular slavery (neither in 1837 nor in 1851 was action taken, and indeed slavery was never formally abolished in Spain—it is possible that it gradually died out on its own). We also know that slaves were massively present in eighteenth-century Cádiz, still forming perhaps as much as 10 percent of the local population, and local newspapers continued to advertise their sale. The situation in Granada may have been similar. In both cities, however, there are indications that while slavery may have persisted into the early nineteenth century, by the mid-eighteenth century the numbers of slaves may have been dropping. It is also possible that, by that time, most slaves were held by people who had contacts with the Americas or were recent arrivals, which perhaps helps explain the connection made between slavery and colonialism. (...)

(...)In recent years, the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science has supported collaborative research projects aimed at understanding the African experience in Spain. One such project, based in Granada, has as its aim to “analyze the evolution of the black African population in Spain from the 16th to the 19th century,” “to bring to center stage the presence of both slaves and freedmen of sub-Saharan origin in Spain,” and “to contribute in this way to the recuperation of the social memory and the recognition of African legacy.”

But like all issues of memory, at stake are not necessarily hard facts but how they are integrated, experienced, and reproduced. We already have sufficient evidence that slavery existed in Spain, that it was an important phenomenon, and that during the early-modern period most slaves were of African descent. What we need perhaps are not additional studies but an evaluation of why memory of them disappeared and what it will take to awaken it.



Source: http://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/how-did-early-modern-slaves-spain-disappear-antecedents

 

[Drac II]

Posts numbered 55,56,57,59,61,64, and 65 have been removed as off-topic. You were warned in post number 54. It was obviously read because there was even a response to it. In the face of the fact that this is obvious resistance to moderation I did not go to the bother of finding an appropriate thread for them.

Stay on topic.

The reply to post 54 was technically "on topic", which you created yourself, namely the claim that some people turn Iberian threads into Italian threads, yet we can also see the opposite with some users having a tendency to turn Italian threads into Iberian ones.

And just for the record, the person who started deviating the thread towards Italy does not claim to be "Iberian", as far as I can tell.

 

[Drac II]

Tamar Herzog (Harvard University), How Did Early-Modern Slaves in Spain Disappear? The Antecedents, 2012

(...) But was slavery a purely colonial affair, as these statements indicate?

Despite this general amnesia, slaves and the descendants of slaves were present in early-modern Spain, and their numbers were not particularly small. To cite just a few examples, we know that in mid-sixteenth-century Seville 7.4 percent of censused inhabitants were slaves and that between 1682 and 1729 the slave population of Cádiz was extremely large, making up perhaps as much as 15 percent of the total urban population. In other cities, such as Málaga, Granada, Las Palmas, Huelva, and Palos de la Frontera, as many as one in ten residents may have been slaves. Between 1539 and 1699, 1,384 slave children were baptized in the small Andalucian town of Lucena, with an average of 400 children every thirty years. Similar numbers may have been true also for Córdoba. Historians who studied slavery in Spain thus concluded that Renaissance and perhaps even early-modern Spain may have had the largest African population in Europe.(...)

(...) Not only did Spain have a huge population of slaves, a population that by the late sixteenth century was mostly composed of individuals of African descent, and not only were slaves present (although in varying numbers) all over the peninsula and in all social milieus, but also their numbers did not necessarily drop at the end of the sixteenth century as historians once believe. Recent research suggests that slavery and the presence of Africans continued to be important factors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and even into the early nineteenth century. Indications for this continuity are everywhere to be found: in 1837 the Cortes debated a law to abolish slavery in the peninsula; and in 1851 the proposal for a new civil code included the issue of peninsular slavery (neither in 1837 nor in 1851 was action taken, and indeed slavery was never formally abolished in Spain—it is possible that it gradually died out on its own). We also know that slaves were massively present in eighteenth-century Cádiz, still forming perhaps as much as 10 percent of the local population, and local newspapers continued to advertise their sale. The situation in Granada may have been similar. In both cities, however, there are indications that while slavery may have persisted into the early nineteenth century, by the mid-eighteenth century the numbers of slaves may have been dropping. It is also possible that, by that time, most slaves were held by people who had contacts with the Americas or were recent arrivals, which perhaps helps explain the connection made between slavery and colonialism. (...)

(...)In recent years, the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science has supported collaborative research projects aimed at understanding the African experience in Spain. One such project, based in Granada, has as its aim to “analyze the evolution of the black African population in Spain from the 16th to the 19th century,” “to bring to center stage the presence of both slaves and freedmen of sub-Saharan origin in Spain,” and “to contribute in this way to the recuperation of the social memory and the recognition of African legacy.”

But like all issues of memory, at stake are not necessarily hard facts but how they are integrated, experienced, and reproduced. We already have sufficient evidence that slavery existed in Spain, that it was an important phenomenon, and that during the early-modern period most slaves were of African descent. What we need perhaps are not additional studies but an evaluation of why memory of them disappeared and what it will take to awaken it.



Source: http://arcade.stanford.edu/rofl/how-did-early-modern-slaves-spain-disappear-antecedents

"African" here is somewhat misleading, since this word also includes North African slaves, not only sub-Saharans. Plus the author herself is aware that by the 18th century the number of slaves was already lower. Such estimates also do not take into account the slaves that did not permanently remain in Spain and ended up being sent to the New World. The practice was common enough in the 16th century that at least three royal edicts trying to stop it were issued:

https://books.google.com/books?id=k...orld of the so-called ladino slaves."&f=false

"For instance, several royal cedulas (1526, 1531, and 1543) prohibited the introduction into the New World of the so-called ladino slaves. This term referred to slaves who had become familiar with Iberian cultures, particularly with the Portuguese or Castilian languages. According to these laws, any slave who had lived in Portugal or Spain for a whole year could be considered a ladino."

In 16th-17th century slave markets of New World areas, like Peru, both kinds of black slaves were offered for sale:

https://books.google.com/books?id=z...a market in large numbers: the ladino&f=false

"But another type of slave was also available in the Lima market in large numbers: the ladino, a black who to a greater or lesser extent was Spanish except for skin color and lingering ties with his African tribal group and its culture."

 

[Hauteville]

Find me a city in Italy with descendent of black slaves like Gibraleon and Alcacer do Sal, please.
No anti Iberism but it's funny that Drac called Italians africans while the higher african DNA in Europe is in most of Iberia.

 

[Drac II]

Find me a city in Italy with descendent of black slaves like Gibraleon and Alcacer do Sal, please.
No anti Iberism but it's funny that Drac called Italians africans while the higher african DNA in Europe is in most of Iberia.

You are off topic again. Also nobody in this thread called Italians "Africans". And "higher African DNA in Europe" can be quite disputed, it depends on which studies you want to use for your particular agenda.

 

[Hauteville]

You and your Basque friend who called us Africans in that thread, "nobody called Italians Africans" lol
Every genetic results show what I have said for Iberia, sorry.

Find me a city in Italy with descendent of black slaves like Gibraleon and Alcacer do Sal, please.

Oh yes

 

[Drac II]

You and your Basque friend who called us Africans in that thread, "nobody called Italians Africans" lol
Every genetic results show what I have said for Iberia, sorry.



Oh yes

The guy who deviated the thread towards Italy is neither my friend nor does he claim to be "Iberian", as far as I know. And I don't recall that he exactly said that "Italians are Africans".

Every genetic study? Really? If you separate "Iberia" into the two separate nations that compose it instead of considering it as one, things are not as clear as you would like them to be. Sorry.

Slaves in Italy were brought mostly to the big cities, like Palermo, Naples, Genoa, Florence, Venice, etc. not to small towns like Gibraleon (your link explains that those people might descend from slaves who were marooned there from a slave ship that had problems, not purposefully imported to the area.)

 

[Vukodav]

Slaves in Italy were brought mostly to the big cities, like Palermo, Naples, Genoa, Florence, Venice, etc. not to small towns like Gibraleon (your link explains that those people descend from slaves who were marooned there from a slave ship that had problems, not purposefully imported to the area.)

Please post recorded evidence that large numbers of black slaves arrived in these cities, like detailed numbers, not general percentages of slaves, which include large numbers of East European slaves, since Italy has been importing tens of thousands of Slavic and Baltic slaves annually since the early Middle Ages.

Iberia imported 700.000-800.000 black slaves between 1460 and 1840. Very few or none of them ended up in America, untill proven otherwise.

By the end of 17th century, black slaves made up 10% of population of the province of Cadiz in Spain.

https://books.google.it/books?id=AT...=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=slaves cadiz&f=false

 

[Angela]

OK. I've had it. The next person who refuses moderation and posts on matters relating to Italian genetics is going to get an infraction. Is that understood?

 

[Drac II]

Please post recorded evidence that large numbers of black slaves arrived in these cities, like detailed numbers, not general percentages of slaves, which include large numbers of East European slaves, since Italy has been importing tens of thousands of Slavic and Baltic slaves annually since the early Middle Ages.

Iberia imported 700.000-800.000 black slaves between 1460 and 1840. Very few or none of them ended up in America, untill proven otherwise.

The one who needs to actually prove such numbers is you, that's your "estimate", not one by actual academics on the subject. And I already provided information on the fact that considerable numbers of slaves in America came from the slaves in Spain. Portugal also did similar things, even selling them to other European nations. Not every slave that was imported to Iberia remained in Iberia.

The usual figure for slaves in 16th century Spain is 100,000, and about half of the slave population were not black Africans but North Africans and people from the Ottoman empire (which at this period already included the Balkans):

https://books.google.com/books?id=i...=onepage&q=Slaves spain around 100000&f=false

 

[Angela]

I don't see how it matters when the SSA in Iberians arrived, or the North African, for that matter. It is what it is. To deny it exists is ridiculous.

We are also talking about very minority components here, especially in terms of the SSA. It doesn't make either the Portuguese or the Spanish less European than anyone else in Europe.

It's a non issue as far as I'm concerned, other than as a matter of intellectual interest.

 

[Pax Augusta]

"African" here is somewhat misleading, since this word also includes North African slaves, not only sub-Saharans. Plus the author herself is aware that by the 18th century the number of slaves was already lower. Such estimates also do not take into account the slaves that did not permanently remain in Spain and ended up being sent to the New World. The practice was common enough in the 16th century that at least three royal edicts trying to stop it were issued:

It's a study of an Harvard professor and is extremely clear.

Slaves in Italy were brought mostly to the big cities, like Palermo, Naples, Genoa, Florence, Venice, etc. not to small towns like Gibraleon (your link explains that those people might descend from slaves who were marooned there from a slave ship that had problems, not purposefully imported to the area.)

I don't undestand why you can't discuss about Iberia without involving Italy. Btw in Italy there were two main slave trades: one in Venice, the other one in Genoa. Venice was mainly focused on slaves from east, while Genova had more trades with Spain and Portugal.

Sally McKee, Domestic Slavery in Renaissance Italy, 2008

The overwhelming majority of the women and men sold to and by Italians came from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Merchants traded in Russians, Circassians, Tatars, Abkhazi, Mingrelli, Geti, Vlachs, Turkish, and others from the Balkan, Caucasus, and Central Asian regions, some of whom were Christians, captured by enterprising local traders or sold into slavery by debt-burdened parents. In late fourteenth- century Florence, most of the slaves were Tartars. Genoese traders sold Greek-speaking adherents of the Eastern Church in Italian and Aegean markets until the late fourteenth century, when the Genoese government no longer allowed it. Far fewer Greek slaves appear in Italian notarial sources after the turn of the fifteenth century, which suggests that the populations of Italian slave-owning societies now viewed the enslavement of Greeks to be as illegitimate as their own enslavement. The Genoese relied heavily on Russian, Circassian, and Tartar slaves into the 1460s. In Venice, Tartars stand out among the slaves sold there. Only the number of Russian slaves reaches nearly as high a figure. When they lost access to the Black Sea in the late fifteenth century, the Genoese and Venetians resorted to Bosnian, Serb, and Albanian captives of the Ottomans. Sub-Saharan African slaves begin to appear more frequently in Genoese and Venetian records in the second half of the century, at the same time that domestic slavery in Italy declined.

(...) The scarcity of black Africans in Italian cities undoubtedly reinforced the exotic quality that some contemporary Italians attributed to them. (...) Black Africans never constituted more than a very small minority of the slave populations of the cities of Italy (...).

(...) In contrast to the export trade, the number of slaves (of every ethnicities) who remained in Italy is easier to estimate. Slaves did not constitute a significant proportion of any urban population in Italy, with the possible exception of Palermo. Henri Bresc estimates that no more than 12% of Sicily’s principle city belonged in the servile category, but, given how small his sample is, it is reasonable to question whether it was really that high. Even in Genoa, whose slave population must have been comparable to Palermo’s, the number of slaves there is thought to have fluctuated between 2 and 5%. The estimates vary between 3000 at any time in the 100 years between 1360 and 1460. Slavery in Siena had nearly died out by 1400. While Florence held about 1000 slaves at the end of the fourteenth century, the number had fallen to less than 400 by 1427, with very few households possessing more than one slave. Boni and Delort counted only 200 slaves in Pisa between 1410 and 1434. Estimating the number of slaves at any time in Venice, Italy’s other major slavetrading power, presents a challenge because of the misleading nature of the evidence. Lane refers to ‘hundreds of slaves’ among the household servants there, which seems plausible, given that population levels in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries fell below 100,000. But there are signs that the proportion of slaves in Venice never approached the proportion found in Genoa. Although slaves are easily found in the fifteenth-century court records relating to crime, their absolute number is not high. (...)

 

[Angela]

Pax Augusta;458927]

I don't undestand why you can't discuss about Iberia without involving Italy. Btw in Italy there were two main slave trades: one in Venice, the other one in Genoa. Venice was mainly focused on slaves from east, while Genova had more trades with Spain and Portugal.

Sally McKee, Domestic Slavery in Renaissance Italy, 2008

The overwhelming majority of the women and men sold to and by Italians came from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Merchants traded in Russians, Circassians, Tatars, Abkhazi, Mingrelli, Geti, Vlachs, Turkish, and others from the Balkan, Caucasus, and Central Asian regions, some of whom were Christians, captured by enterprising local traders or sold into slavery by debt-burdened parents. In late fourteenth- century Florence, most of the slaves were Tartars. Genoese traders sold Greek-speaking adherents of the Eastern Church in Italian and Aegean markets until the late fourteenth century, when the Genoese government no longer allowed it. Far fewer Greek slaves appear in Italian notarial sources after the turn of the fifteenth century, which suggests that the populations of Italian slave-owning societies now viewed the enslavement of Greeks to be as illegitimate as their own enslavement. The Genoese relied heavily on Russian, Circassian, and Tartar slaves into the 1460s. In Venice, Tartars stand out among the slaves sold there. Only the number of Russian slaves reaches nearly as high a figure. When they lost access to the Black Sea in the late fifteenth century, the Genoese and Venetians resorted to Bosnian, Serb, and Albanian captives of the Ottomans. Sub-Saharan African slaves begin to appear more frequently in Genoese and Venetian records in the second half of the century, at the same time that domestic slavery in Italy declined.

(...) The scarcity of black Africans in Italian cities undoubtedly reinforced the exotic quality that some contemporary Italians attributed to them. (...) Black Africans never constituted more than a very small minority of the slave populations of the cities of Italy (...).

(...) In contrast to the export trade, the number of slaves (of every ethnicities) who remained in Italy is easier to estimate. Slaves did not constitute a significant proportion of any urban population in Italy, with the possible exception of Palermo. Henri Bresc estimates that no more than 12% of Sicily’s principle city belonged in the servile category, but, given how small his sample is, it is reasonable to question whether it was really that high. Even in Genoa, whose slave population must have been comparable to Palermo’s, the number of slaves there is thought to have fluctuated between 2 and 5%. The estimates vary between 3000 at any time in the 100 years between 1360 and 1460. Slavery in Siena had nearly died out by 1400. While Florence held about 1000 slaves at the end of the fourteenth century, the number had fallen to less than 400 by 1427, with very few households possessing more than one slave. Boni and Delort counted only 200 slaves in Pisa between 1410 and 1434. Estimating the number of slaves at any time in Venice, Italy’s other major slavetrading power, presents a challenge because of the misleading nature of the evidence. Lane refers to ‘hundreds of slaves’ among the household servants there, which seems plausible, given that population levels in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries fell below 100,000. But there are signs that the proportion of slaves in Venice never approached the proportion found in Genoa. Although slaves are easily found in the fifteenth-century court records relating to crime, their absolute number is not high. (...)

I meant what I said..

"OK. I've had it. The next person who refuses moderation and posts on matters relating to Italian genetics is going to get an infraction. Is that understood? "


​

 

[Pax Augusta]

I meant what I said..

"OK. I've had it. The next person who refuses moderation and posts on matters relating to Italian genetics is going to get an infraction. Is that understood? "​

​

Sorry, got it.

 

[Vukodav]

By 500BC Estruscans could have become mostly native, and lost most of their original Estruscan blood. We have to consider that possibility.

Hundreds of ancient Etruscan mtdna lineages have been analyzed by Ghirotto et al 2013 and compared with both ancient and modern populations, and the conclusion is that the separation times between Etruscans and Anatolians is more than 5000 years, which de facto disproves the Anatolian theory.

 

[Drac II]

It's a study of an Harvard professor and is extremely clear.




I don't undestand why you can't discuss about Iberia without involving Italy. Btw in Italy there were two main slave trades: one in Venice, the other one in Genoa. Venice was mainly focused on slaves from east, while Genova had more trades with Spain and Portugal.

Sally McKee, Domestic Slavery in Renaissance Italy, 2008

The overwhelming majority of the women and men sold to and by Italians came from Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Merchants traded in Russians, Circassians, Tatars, Abkhazi, Mingrelli, Geti, Vlachs, Turkish, and others from the Balkan, Caucasus, and Central Asian regions, some of whom were Christians, captured by enterprising local traders or sold into slavery by debt-burdened parents. In late fourteenth- century Florence, most of the slaves were Tartars. Genoese traders sold Greek-speaking adherents of the Eastern Church in Italian and Aegean markets until the late fourteenth century, when the Genoese government no longer allowed it. Far fewer Greek slaves appear in Italian notarial sources after the turn of the fifteenth century, which suggests that the populations of Italian slave-owning societies now viewed the enslavement of Greeks to be as illegitimate as their own enslavement. The Genoese relied heavily on Russian, Circassian, and Tartar slaves into the 1460s. In Venice, Tartars stand out among the slaves sold there. Only the number of Russian slaves reaches nearly as high a figure. When they lost access to the Black Sea in the late fifteenth century, the Genoese and Venetians resorted to Bosnian, Serb, and Albanian captives of the Ottomans. Sub-Saharan African slaves begin to appear more frequently in Genoese and Venetian records in the second half of the century, at the same time that domestic slavery in Italy declined.

(...) The scarcity of black Africans in Italian cities undoubtedly reinforced the exotic quality that some contemporary Italians attributed to them. (...) Black Africans never constituted more than a very small minority of the slave populations of the cities of Italy (...).

(...) In contrast to the export trade, the number of slaves (of every ethnicities) who remained in Italy is easier to estimate. Slaves did not constitute a significant proportion of any urban population in Italy, with the possible exception of Palermo. Henri Bresc estimates that no more than 12% of Sicily’s principle city belonged in the servile category, but, given how small his sample is, it is reasonable to question whether it was really that high. Even in Genoa, whose slave population must have been comparable to Palermo’s, the number of slaves there is thought to have fluctuated between 2 and 5%. The estimates vary between 3000 at any time in the 100 years between 1360 and 1460. Slavery in Siena had nearly died out by 1400. While Florence held about 1000 slaves at the end of the fourteenth century, the number had fallen to less than 400 by 1427, with very few households possessing more than one slave. Boni and Delort counted only 200 slaves in Pisa between 1410 and 1434. Estimating the number of slaves at any time in Venice, Italy’s other major slavetrading power, presents a challenge because of the misleading nature of the evidence. Lane refers to ‘hundreds of slaves’ among the household servants there, which seems plausible, given that population levels in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries fell below 100,000. But there are signs that the proportion of slaves in Venice never approached the proportion found in Genoa. Although slaves are easily found in the fifteenth-century court records relating to crime, their absolute number is not high. (...)

Yes, it is clear, and she acknowledges that by the 18th century the number of slaves had already gone down. Did you actually read everything? Plus once again, the word "African" also includes North Africans. As I showed in another academic source, about half of the slaves in 16th century Spain were in fact North Africans and people obtained from Ottoman empire lands.

As to your question: I didn't bring up Italy, it was a couple of other users who did. The person who started the thread brought up the topic of Romans in Iberia from the very first post, so technically Italy has something to do with this thread, but during Roman times. And the McKee paper is only about the 15th century period.

 

[Johannes]

I've read that R1b in Basuqe, Iberians, and SouthWest French belong mostly to R1b-DF27(subclade of P312). I've read about DF27 subclades which are "Basque-specific". So, R1b in Basque may be mostly from pretty recent founder effects.

It don't think it came with Iberians because they only existed in Iberia, while P312 also exists in Celts, Basque, Italics, Germans, and probably: Estruscans and all the other pre-Roman people of Italy. Iberians weren't Indo European. And Aryan is a name only used for some Indo Iranians from South, Central, and West Asia. It's not used for all Indo Europeans. It's meaning has been perverted to mean Indo European or white or European.

So it would seem that Iberians would have brought R1b P312 which created the common basque/French subclade R1b DF27? What do you mean Iberians only existed in Iberia? R1b P312 came from somewhere east of Europe and its probably a Pre-Indo-European people, who were similar to Celts and Romans. The Iberians probably spoke an Pre-Indo European language and maybe basque is this type?

 

[Johannes]

The reply to post 54 was technically "on topic", which you created yourself, namely the claim that some people turn Iberian threads into Italian threads, yet we can also see the opposite with some users having a tendency to turn Italian threads into Iberian ones.

And just for the record, the person who started deviating the thread towards Italy does not claim to be "Iberian", as far as I can tell.

Yes I have "Iberian" DNA. That's why I started this Iberian/Basque thread hoping to find some solution to the enigma of "Iberians and Basques."

 

[Drac II]

Yes I have "Iberian" DNA. That's why I started this Iberian/Basque thread hoping to find some solution to the enigma of "Iberians and Basques."

You are not from Iberia, but an American, right? You also list other backgrounds in your profile.

 

[Johannes]

The population of Iberia during Roman times was about 6 million inhabitants:

https://books.google.com/books?id=N...is ordinarily estimated at 6,000,000"&f=false

"The population of Roman Iberia at its height is ordinarily estimated at 6,000,000"

Plus over 90% of the inhabitants lived in rural areas (see same source as above), in other words: farmers, shepherds, miners, fishermen, woodsmen, etc. These people would hardly have much contact with foreigners. In fact they would have had very little contact even with other native Iberians/Celts/Celtiberians from other distant parts of the very same peninsula, let alone with small foreign minorities from abroad.

So some few thousand Roman soldiers distributed in garrisons and cities through the geography of the peninsula are hardly an impressive number. To put the numbers of Roman soldiers you cited into perspective: they did not even make up 1% of the population of Roman-era Iberia.




There wasn't any huge migration of Romans into Iberia either. It was just a military conquest, just like that of the earlier Carthaginians and the later Visigoths, Vandals, Swabians and Arabs/Moors, none of whom brought more than a few thousand of their own people into an area that was already populated by millions of native inhabitants (the majority of whom couldn't care less about who was nominally in control of the government, as long as they left them alone and did not overtax them.) The majority of the Iberian and Celtic/Celtiberian population of the peninsula hardly had much contact with the foreign Roman minority:

https://books.google.com/books?id=f...a=X&ei=TQFrVc3iEITysAWtnYCYDg&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ

"...it was only a small percentage of middle- and upper-class Spaniards who gained any direct contact with Rome and the Romans. It was only in the towns of Andalusia, the east coast and the Ebro valley that there was any marked transition to Roman manners and the Roman way of life, in the first century a.d. The great contrast between city and country that is so noticeable in modern Spain, must have existed then.""

I checked your historian and I believe he is wrong. Population of Iberia was closer to 4 millions. My source is Spanish. Google "La evolución de la población española en la época precensal." I doubt the Iberian population would have deceased by 2 millions from 100 BCE to the time of Augustus. Of course many thousands were killed and enslaved during the Iberian Wars, but I think the Spanish article is true.