& even then, like the Philippines, we have such a low sampled population from 1/a certain region that you don't know if it accurately represents the entire population & from what region. Even then, you don't know if the present population accurately depicts the DNA of the population 500-1000 years ago.
So for example, if you have a Spaniard marry a Filipino, the DNA marker identifying a Spanish or Filipino population would not necessarily have been passed on equally to all children (if they had 2 for example). Maybe 1 had 40% European markers like Jokoy & the other only 10% like his sister (just example, don't know which markers has what);
(^^^I saw another vid where Jokoy's sis looked morena, major sunburn. Just like many typical sunburned Filipino, she's even pango & not matangos despite being "50% European.")
ust a quick word of clarification (BTW I'm not Filipino so I have no axe to grind, but my son has a Filipino girlfriend, so I'm very interested!) : The 3.6% figure often cited denotes a Y-chromosome haplotype. In other words, it counts ONLY those who have an unbroken male-line Spanish ancestry. It is not an accurate counter, as many Filipinos may have Spanish ancestry through female lines, which the Y-chromosome will not cover.
For example : Juan (a Spaniard) marries Sun-Fan (a Chinese). They have a daughter, whom I'm call Aurora.
* Aurora marries an Ilocano, whom I'll call Roberto. They have a son named Ferdinand. Does Ferdinand have Spanish blood? Yes, he has. Will it show up in the genetic test? No, it won't, because it's through his mother Aurora, who does not carry the Y-chromosome.
** Roberto's descendants 400 years later have a VERY diluted amount of Spanish ancestry. They MAY or MAY not remember it. It MAY or MAY NOT be documented anywhere. But it WILL NOT show up in any Y-chromosome test.Hope that simplifies things.
And by the way, it's incorrect to say that the 3.6% have at least a third Spanish ancestry. Some may have; some may have a lot more than that, some may have a lot less than that. To avoid getting too mathematical, let me make another model:
- - Ferdinand is Spanish. He marries an Ilocano girl named Marcia; they have a son named Juan. Juan is half-Spanish.
- - Juan marries a Chinese girl named Song-Ching. They have a son named Santiago. Santiago is 25 percent Spanish — but he still carries the Y-chromosome that goes back to Spain.
- - Santiago marries a Kampangan girl named Maria. They have a son named Jose. Jose is only 12.5 percent Spanish — but he still carries that Y-chromosome that originated inSpain.
- - Jose's male-line grandchildren are 3.25 percent Spanish. The Spanish Y-chromosome is still there.
So, whether or not the Y-chromosome shows up in the genetic test is not an indicator of how much or how little Spanish ancestry anyone has. All it shows is that that there is an unbroken male line going back to a Spanish ancestor, who may be recent or ancient.
And now, let's model the opposite:
- Ferdinand is Spanish. He marries an Ilocano girl named Marcia; they have a son named Juan. Juan is half-Spanish.
- Juan marries a Spanish girl named Gloria. They have a daughter named Angela. Angela is 75 percent Spanish.
- Angela marries a Kampangan man named Jose. They have have a son named Salvador. Salvador is 37.5 percent Spanish. He DOES NOT carry the Y-chromosome marker — that's been lost, as the Spanish ancestry is through his mother.
- Salvador marries a Spanish girl named Estrella. They have a son named Manuel. Manuel is 68.75 percent Spanish. Will his genetic test indicate that? No, it will not. He has inherited a mostly Spanish ancestry, but not the crucial Y-chromosome.Of course, there are many genetic markers, of which the Y-chromosome is only one. But that is the one that that led to this 3.6% figure that's being bandied about.
Thanks for the explanation. Only a tiny percentage of a person's genes is based on Y-DNA alot more is based on autosomes.
Sent from my RQ735-A using Tapatalk
Well, according to the conclusion-part of the second text you provided, Spanish mestizos weren't merely 8000, as you suggested but number around 57,000.
And these are only the half Spaniards.
Meanwhile, every year, the Spanish at Mexico sends thousands of Amerindian-Hispanic Mestizos and African-Hispanic Mullatoes soldiers into the Philippines as their descendants get absorbed into the predominantly Indio population and their descendants get counted as Indios...
If you put up page 224 of your second source to google translate, it said...
Por other hand, in the Philippines there were also mestizos from going Nue-Spain, most of them part of the contingent of soldiers viceroys were required to submit annually to the garrisons of the islands. Are frequent letters from governors of the Philippines expressing their grievances to the king and the Council of the Indies by the almost systematic in-fulfillment of this obligation, in that, when the parties of soldiers were formed by mestizos, mulattos and remitían- blacks, often very young boys.
So in a way you are correct. There were very very few pure Spaniards living in the Philippines then and thus very few Spanish-Malay Mestizos too. But in a way, you are wrong, in that, there were alot of Mullatoes, Mestizos and Amerindians sent to the Philippines who had partial Spanish descent and partial African or Amerindian descent which would explain why in the National Geographic's Genographic project, they detected Amerindian and Southern European genes in most of Filipinos.
SOURCE: https://genographic.nationalgeograph...ions-next-gen/
Genetics don't lie. And I don't think an institution such as the National Geographic would have shoddy methodology when they discovered Amerindian and Southern European genes in the average Filipino.
I've done some research on the matter and it seems like there were indeed many Hispanics (Mostly Latin-Americans) who came to the Philippines in the first two centuries of Spanish rule, enough to change the genetics of the ordinary Filipino.
I tracked down some references from the web and these are the numbers which I found so far...
So considering that the average count of members per Spanish family were about 6 or 7 in the 1500s, that means that there would be a total of 8400 Spanish living in Manila at the 1500s alone.
Next, we go to Cebu City, at the Visayas, the settlement received a total of 2,100 soldier-settlers from New Spain (Mexico).
Now, if you add Cebu's Mexican population of 2,100 to Manila's population of 8,400 Spaniards, it totals to 10,500 Hispanics. Add to this are the Mexican soldiers stationed at Cavite which were a regiment and would number around 1000...
Adding these should amount to around 11500 Soldiers. To add to this would be the Peruvians settled in Zamboanga City as ordered by Don Sebastían Hurtado de Corcuera.
There is no exact number of them stated, what's only known is that there were a great many of them recruited and considering the transportation of that age, then the colonists would roughly be the same as the figure for the Mexicans settled in Cebu, which is 2,100.
Source:
Then, you would also add the Mexican settlers who settled in the Arrabales of Ermita, which was named because of a Mexican hermit which lived there. The community would count around a thousand Mexican settlers...
Adding them up would produce around 15,600 colonists during the 1500s (Most of which would be Latin-American in origin, Mostly from Mexico and with a tiny contribution from Peru. There would be not much Spanish, there were very few Spaniards who directly migrated to the Philippines then).
In fact, here is a graph which prove that direct migration from Spain was minuscule...
So, during the beginning years of colonization, by the late 1500s, Mexico and Peru sent out a total of 15,600 soldiers and colonists.
15,600 won't seem to be alot to affect the Filipino population, however, we must bear in mind that there were also very few native Filipinos then.
According to a tribute count of all native Filipinos under Spanish governance, the whole population of the Philippines only amounted to about 666,712 people in the islands. Thus, during this era, the Philippines was among the most sparsely populated lands in Asia. In contrast, Japan during that era (the 1500s) already had a population of 8 Million or Mexico had a population of 4 million, which was huge compared to the Philippine's mere 600,000.
Well, I think the 15,600 Latino soldiers and colonists could have adequately affected the 600,000 native Filipinos, in order to spread the European and Native American genes around, in a diluted form, as we see in genetic studies about Filipinos and the 15,600 migrants were only true for those who came during the 1500s, during the 1600s an additional 18,000 people arrived from the Americas, the combined 15,600 migrants in the 1500s and the 18,000 migrants in the 1600s could almost add-up to 40,000 Latino soldiers, way more than enough to affect the 1600s' 700,000 population of native Filipinos.
It seems like my collation for the initial Mexican migration to the Philippines of 15600 in the 1500s, is correct. Since by the 1600s the number is quite close, 18,000.
It's 18000, mostly soldiers. By the 1600s, the population of the Philippines increased to 700,000+, and by that time, the descendants of the 16500 New Spain settlers from the 1500s, began to spread around the population too.
You can look at the immigration records from Mexico, here.
Also, most of the people transported to the Philippines from Mexico were from these locations...
