PDA

View Full Version : Douro Frontier



Ruderico
02-07-2022, 11:09 AM
Although archeology does not seem to agree, relying on ordinary maps, certainly based on written sources from antiquity, the Douro River was used since immemorial times as a border between the Lusitanians and the tribes to the north such as the Galicians. With the Romans it continued, now as the border between the province of Lusitania and Galécia, whose separate population fusions gave rise to Galician Latin and Lusitanian Latin. Then followed the interregnum with the 'barbarians' rushes and returns as the Arab/Christian border. At the beginning of the reconquest, the localities on either side of the river were 'completely depopulated' for about a century, Christians and Moors burned crops, everything. The city of Oporto itself did not have 'a single inhabitant'. Those who prospered were the populations of subsistence agriculture and the harshest lands and hostile climate, men of rye, millet, oats, freed from the thousand and one servitudes to their masters from serving them in war to the right of leg (the night of the girls' wedding was spent with the feudal lord, [the other occasions 'people' don't know but calculate]), passed through all kinds of taxes. When the situation returned to normal, these root populations may not have completely ceded the ground they had conquered, reviving the old genetic frontier of the Douro. People who know more about these matters argue that the Christian reconquest and later movements erased this frontier.

There we go with the "Douro border" once again and an outdated and distorted version of history, that's far from what we currently know about history and archaeology:

1) Archaeologists do not make a clear distinction between Gallaecians and Lusitanians, nor can they even establish a border between both groups. If you don't believe me just try asking Dr. Gonçalo Cruz, archaeologist at Briteiros, what the ethno-linguistic identity of the peoples living there during the Iron Age were.
Toponymy, anthroponymy, theonomy, hydronomy seems to be virtually the same with only slight dialectal variations between Galicia and Central Portugal, such as the theonym Bandue/bandua VS Bandi/Bande. The only possible distinction seems to be the degree of Celticisation between different groups, with those near the coastline possibly showing higher degree of celtic influence, and those further away having less. Control of the coastline and river valleys was critical because it enabled local groups to control the trade flow into the hinterlands, much like the bourgeois in Porto did in the Douro valley since the 1700/1800s, especially when it came to Port wine. As you know Port is grown/produced in both sides of the river.

2) We know of no such thing as Gallaecian Latin and Lusitanian Latin. Please share one single academic source pointing to this Latin dialectal difference, I'd really like to see it.

3) The Roman border between Lusitania and Tarraconensis wasn't established initially, and they virtually always used rivers to mark divisions because it was easily identifiable, not because there were distinct groups lived on either side of the river. You have other examples throughout the Empire (Rhine, Danube, etc). Gallaecians were in the same province as the Iberi, even though the latter wasn't even Indo-European speaking.

4)The Musilm/Christian border was only the Douro after the Almansor Offensive (990-1000) until 1050s, between these dates it was a back-and-forth with fights happening occasionally, which is why Alfonso V of León died at the siege of Viseu in 1028. Before that both banks of the river were part of the kingdom of León (and before that Asturias), and afterwards both were part of the Kingdom of Galicia, which was a subject of the Kingdom of León (again). The border was around the Sistema Central or thereabouts.

5) There is no "genetic frontier" in the Douro, stop spreading misinformation, this was already covered in TWO published genetics studies.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330810566/figure/fig3/AS:[email protected]/Clustering-analysis-including-Portuguese-individuals-and-large-clusters-at-the-bottom-of.png
Nation-wide samples forming a single cluster.


https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-019-44121-6/MediaObjects/41598_2019_44121_Fig3_HTML.png
Porto VS Lisbon

It's not a dialectal border either.
https://i.postimg.cc/R0yrbVFs/mapa06.gif
Source: Instituto Camões http://cvc.instituto-camoes.pt/hlp/geografia/mapa06.html

Light/Dark blue - northern dialects
Brown/tan - central/southern dialects

Red line - subdialectal region with strong local characteristics

Even before those were published we had plenty of people taking DNA tests, and no statistically significant differences were noticed between folks living on either side of the river. We can't even say there was one in the past because we have 0 ancient samples from western Iberia since the last 3000 years.

Whatever happened in Brittany and the Loire does not necessarily apply elsewhere, certainly not to west Iberia.

jose luis
02-07-2022, 07:48 PM
There we go with the "Douro border" once again and an outdated and distorted version of history, that's far from what we currently know about history and archaeology:

1) Archaeologists do not make a clear distinction between Gallaecians and Lusitanians, nor can they even establish a border between both groups. If you don't believe me just try asking Dr. Gonçalo Cruz, archaeologist at Briteiros, what the ethno-linguistic identity of the peoples living there during the Iron Age were.
Toponymy, anthroponymy, theonomy, hydronomy seems to be virtually the same with only slight dialectal variations between Galicia and Central Portugal, such as the theonym Bandue/bandua VS Bandi/Bande. The only possible distinction seems to be the degree of Celticisation between different groups, with those near the coastline possibly showing higher degree of celtic influence, and those further away having less. Control of the coastline and river valleys was critical because it enabled local groups to control the trade flow into the hinterlands, much like the bourgeois in Porto did in the Douro valley since the 1700/1800s, especially when it came to Port wine. As you know Port is grown/produced in both sides of the river.

2) We know of no such thing as Gallaecian Latin and Lusitanian Latin. Please share one single academic source pointing to this Latin dialectal difference, I'd really like to see it.

3) The Roman border between Lusitania and Tarraconensis wasn't established initially, and they virtually always used rivers to mark divisions because it was easily identifiable, not because there were distinct groups lived on either side of the river. You have other examples throughout the Empire (Rhine, Danube, etc). Gallaecians were in the same province as the Iberi, even though the latter wasn't even Indo-European speaking.

4)The Musilm/Christian border was only the Douro after the Almansor Offensive (990-1000) until 1050s, between these dates it was a back-and-forth with fights happening occasionally, which is why Alfonso V of León died at the siege of Viseu in 1028. Before that both banks of the river were part of the kingdom of León (and before that Asturias), and afterwards both were part of the Kingdom of Galicia, which was a subject of the Kingdom of León (again). The border was around the Sistema Central or thereabouts.

5) There is no "genetic frontier" in the Douro, stop spreading misinformation, this was already covered in TWO published genetics studies.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330810566/figure/fig3/AS:[email protected]/Clustering-analysis-including-Portuguese-individuals-and-large-clusters-at-the-bottom-of.png
Nation-wide samples forming a single cluster.


https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-019-44121-6/MediaObjects/41598_2019_44121_Fig3_HTML.png
Porto VS Lisbon

It's not a dialectal border either.
https://i.postimg.cc/R0yrbVFs/mapa06.gif
Source: Instituto Camões http://cvc.instituto-camoes.pt/hlp/geografia/mapa06.html

Light/Dark blue - northern dialects
Brown/tan - central/southern dialects

Red line - subdialectal region with strong local characteristics

Even before those were published we had plenty of people taking DNA tests, and no statistically significant differences were noticed between folks living on either side of the river. We can't even say there was one in the past because we have 0 ancient samples from western Iberia since the last 3000 years.

Whatever happened in Brittany and the Loire does not necessarily apply elsewhere, certainly not to west Iberia.

I answer as best I can:
As for your Point 1): Archaeologists do not make a clear distinction between Gallaecians and Lusitanians, nor can they even establish a border between both groups, but Gallaecians and Lusitanians are not imagination of classical geographers, the written stones until the end of the Roman Empire continue to tell us about numerous tribes in the region, which means that when the Roman Empire fell, the region had not yet been detribalized. Different political entities may have similar cultural artifacts and materials. More or less porous the tribal boundaries somewhere were, and the classical sources agree with the natural marker of the region, the Douro River.
Point 2): It seems to me elementary that the Mozarabic language came from the Latin spoken in Lusitania, and the Galician-Portuguese from the Latin spoken in Galecia. Unless I'm wrong, the books where I read this are out of print, but more in-depth descriptions of the journey of Latin to Portuguese addresses this. On the net it is also possible.
Point 3): "initially" is nothing compared to the centuries that the Roman administrative division was used.
Point 4): These 50 years (or a few more decades) were enough for the rebirth of the most archaic populations.
Point 5): As for the second study presented, it is not fine scale, it has a lower scientific value and only used people from Lisbon and Porto. The result could only be that. Porto and Lisbon are the places where Portuguese fusion is strongest. The scientific value of the first study is equally compromised in the case of Portuguese territory, as authors explained below the first map "...included data from Portuguese individuals but using a smaller set of SNPs...No fine-scale geographic information was available for these individuals , so we placed them randomly within the boundaries of Portugal and show a single background colour.". Furthermore, in the study the only other reference to the Portuguese is that they are similar to the Galicians, but what Galicians? They show various Galicians. The largest frontier is with the most communicable and productive zone of the real Galicians, the Pontevedra clusters, but painted Portugal with the blue of the Galicians of the north and east who are not exactly Galicians but non-Galicians Spaniards that only touch the Portuguese territory around Bragança, the most arid and difficult zone to communicate. The rest of the border is with the Leonese area. The people who do commercial genetic tests are the most cosmopolitan, the most fused in the Portuguese whole, with more ancestors from the post-reconquest repopulation, they are not a balanced and scientific sample of the Portuguese population. Less educated people, far from the means of communication, rural and archaic, often do not even know what genetics is and have fears, superstitions, only recent emigration to developed countries will be able to mitigate this.

Ruderico
02-07-2022, 08:57 PM
I answer as best I can:
As for your Point 1): Archaeologists do not make a clear distinction between Gallaecians and Lusitanians, nor can they even establish a border between both groups, but Gallaecians and Lusitanians are not imagination of classical geographers, the written stones until the end of the Roman Empire continue to tell us about numerous tribes in the region, which means that when the Roman Empire fell, the region had not yet been detribalized. Different political entities may have similar cultural artifacts and materials. More or less porous the tribal boundaries somewhere were, and the classical sources agree with the natural marker of the region, the Douro River.
Point 2): It seems to me elementary that the Mozarabic language came from the Latin spoken in Lusitania, and the Galician-Portuguese from the Latin spoken in Galecia. Unless I'm wrong, the books where I read this are out of print, but more in-depth descriptions of the journey of Latin to Portuguese addresses this. On the net it is also possible.
Point 3): "initially" is nothing compared to the centuries that the Roman administrative division was used.
Point 4): These 50 years (or a few more decades) were enough for the rebirth of the most archaic populations.
Point 5): As for the second study presented, it is not fine scale, it has a lower scientific value and only used people from Lisbon and Porto. The result could only be that. Porto and Lisbon are the places where Portuguese fusion is strongest. The scientific value of the first study is equally compromised in the case of Portuguese territory, as authors explained below the first map "...included data from Portuguese individuals but using a smaller set of SNPs...No fine-scale geographic information was available for these individuals , so we placed them randomly within the boundaries of Portugal and show a single background colour.". Furthermore, in the study the only other reference to the Portuguese is that they are similar to the Galicians, but what Galicians? They show various Galicians. The largest frontier is with the most communicable and productive zone of the real Galicians, the Pontevedra clusters, but painted Portugal with the blue of the Galicians of the north and east who are not exactly Galicians but non-Galicians Spaniards that only touch the Portuguese territory around Bragança, the most arid and difficult zone to communicate. The rest of the border is with the Leonese area. The people who do commercial genetic tests are the most cosmopolitan, the most fused in the Portuguese whole, with more ancestors from the post-reconquest repopulation, they are not a balanced and scientific sample of the Portuguese population. Less educated people, far from the means of communication, rural and archaic, often do not even know what genetics is and have fears, superstitions, only recent emigration to developed countries will be able to mitigate this.

1) Actually even ancient sources actually have a hard time distinguishing between both Lusitanian and Gallaecians and generally equate them, I suggest you read Stabo Geographica's Book 3 where it is explicitly mentioned that the populations north of the Douro used to be called Lusitanians.

For this reason, since they were very hard to fight with, the Callaicans themselves have not only furnished the surname for the man who defeated the Lusitanians but they have also brought it about that now, already, the most of the Lusitanians are called Callaicans.

One of the three, with two legions, guards the frontier of the whole country beyond the Durius to the north: the inhabitants of this country were spoken of by the people of former times as Lusitanians, but by the people of to‑day they are called Callacans.
"Today" means around the time of Augustus, or Caesar, about a thousand years after the establishment of castros which date back to the late Bronze Age all the way until the early Roman period. As said in other topics celticisation of western Iberia was a late event within the peninsula when compared to the Meseta, and was still ongoing during the early Roman administration of the territories as we see Celtiberian-specific anthroponyms and theonyms in formerly Lusitanian-speaking territories.

2) "Elementary", yet you provide no sources for a dialectal difference between the regions during the times of the Roman Empire. In fact you don't ever provide sources.

3) You could likewise use that argument for linking Gallaecia and Murcia, since they were both in Hispania Tarraconensis.

4.1) I don't know what you mean by "rebirth of the most archaic populations". There's no archaeological samples from the pre-Roman, Roman, nor post-Roman periods in Galicia nor Portugal, so we can't actually say anything concrete, let alone talk about its "rebirth".
For what is worth the lands north of the Douro, particularly further inland, were extensively exploited by Rome due to their mineral riches, particularly gold, and therefore used a large amount of slaves in order to operate them - if anything it should have seen a greater transformation that other, poorer, parts of the peninsula.
https://i.postimg.cc/yNj0vk6c/Mining-Roman-Empire.jpg

4.2) The border existed between the decade of the 990s to the decade of 1050s, Lamego and Viseu were last taken in 1057 and 1058 respectively. Yes, that did leave a slight toponymic mark, but to consider it a great border is an overstatement considering you ignore the rest of the country. As an example the amount of Arabic hydronyms north of the Douro are 0, between the Douro and Mondego they amount to ~2% (3 rivers), yet it's ~13% between the Mondego and Tejo, and over 20% south of the Tejo until the Algarve.
https://i.postimg.cc/WpfpcQsx/Hidrotoponimos-Portugal.png
If we could talk about a hard historical border between Christians and Muslims it was somewhere south of the Sistema Central.

5) They have plenty of samples from Porto and Lisbon, and while the latter attracted people from all over the country, the former was mostly a destination for northerners. You talk about a "Douro frontier" yet have no issues saying Porto attracted people from everywhere. Not much of a border then, was it? My own family comes form both sides of the river, again I don't see a border considering back in the early days of the country we know of at least 12 barge-crossing areas between the Foz and the areas further inland of Porto/Viseu districts.
Regardless the results are published and there's no statistical difference between both groups https://i.postimg.cc/ssYTqnsn/k7.png

As for the second study you're ignoring the word geographic in "No fine-scale geographic information was available for these individuals , so we placed them randomly within the boundaries of Portugal" meaning they don't know where they're originally from, but in the end it didn't matter because with one exception all individuals were placed in the same cluster. The studies do make fine-scaling analysis, just because you're unhappy with the results doesn't make them "low scientific value". Even if they were bad studies, which they are not, only one of us is basing their arguments on scientific data.
The rest of your point 5 is just your personal bias, I've seen results from people all over the country, from urban areas to rural areas, form north to south, from the coastal areas to the interior, and so far there are no outliers - Portuguese are quite homogenous, and these two studies show why. In fact it was rather predictable considering the borders have remain virtually unchanged since 1248, and populations within stable political entities tend to homogenise over the generations. I seriously suggest you take a look at genealogy, hopefully your bias about "less educated people" will fade, my own familiar background is exclusively rural and historically poor.



I asked for sources, at the moment you provided a total of 0. If you cant back up your claims with actual sources people can access don't bother posting.
The discussion was moved away from the French study, it was going too off-track and was unrelated to it.


Edit: Even if you look at outdated data, like pigmentation studies from the 20th century, there doesn't seem to be much of a divide along the Douro.
https://portuguesephenotype.blogspot.com/2014/01/cartografia.html

RCO
02-07-2022, 11:01 PM
I think the population density between the Minho and Douro Rivers are among the most concentrated and largest in Iberia, so a big regional rural population of small landowners (lavradores proprietários), good soils, rain and water enough for minifúndios created the social base for the Portuguese language, culture and Medieval Warlike National State conquering the Central-South, the Tagus Line and the Algarve, able to fight and keep the Independence in several wars and able to create the first multicontinental seaborne Empire.

Interesting reading here:
MUÇULMANOS E CRISTÃOS NO DOURO PORTUGUÊS (SÉC. VIII-XI) Mário Jorge Barroca DCTP-FLUP / CITCEM


Between the 9th and 11th centuries, the Douro valley became a frontier space, sometimes controlled by Muslims, others by Christians. The situation would only have a definitive evolution in the middle of the 11th century, with the military campaigns of Fernando Magno, which culminated with the conquest of Coimbra (1064). In this conference, some testimonies of the Islamic presence in the Douro Valley will be analyzed, whilst considering Muslim and Christian chronicles, toponymical testimonies and archaeological remains, in an attempt to approach remote and troubled times, usually silenced in collective memory
https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/handle/10216/102579

And the Almoravids still could reach Coimbra in 1117
Fronteira do Gharb al-Andalus: Terreno de Confronto entre Almorávidas e Cristãos (1093-1147)
https://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/46547

Ruderico
02-08-2022, 10:26 AM
I think the population density between the Minho and Douro Rivers are among the most concentrated and largest in Iberia, so a big regional rural population of small landowners (lavradores proprietários), good soils, rain and water enough for minifúndios created the social base for the Portuguese language, culture and Medieval Warlike National State conquering the Central-South, the Tagus Line and the Algarve, able to fight and keep the Independence in several wars and able to create the first multicontinental seaborne Empire.

Interesting reading here:
MUÇULMANOS E CRISTÃOS NO DOURO PORTUGUÊS (SÉC. VIII-XI) Mário Jorge Barroca DCTP-FLUP / CITCEM


https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/handle/10216/102579

And the Almoravids still could reach Coimbra in 1117
Fronteira do Gharb al-Andalus: Terreno de Confronto entre Almorávidas e Cristãos (1093-1147)
https://repositorio.ul.pt/handle/10451/46547

You're probably right, the populations of coastal NW Portugal were the founders of the Portuguese political entity which would spread all the way south (and east) between the 800s and 1249, spreading the population via the repovoações, bringing with them the language, toponyms, etc, we see today. There's a monograph regarding the use of toponyms and their linguistic medieval background in the country that is quite interesting: https://repositorio.ul.pt/bitstream/10451/33236/1/ToponimiaSantiago_Fernandes_Cardeira.pdf
Some examples:

https://i.postimg.cc/PrZNTHKP/aldeia.png


https://i.postimg.cc/xdjdvzQz/quintela.png


https://i.postimg.cc/gjhczyVf/casainho.png


https://i.postimg.cc/CLYpnVSZ/casal.png

I'd bet that this early medieval population was also very closely related to the contemporary populations of Galicia, which is why even today both are so very similar and speak a closely-related language. However these inhabitants could have initially been heterogeneous, much like we've seen elsewhere (Italy), homogenising over the generations. One of these sub-groups could be Mozarabs, who I'd guess would be similar to Roman/Visigothic/Muslim period south Spanish individuals we've already seen. We'll have to wait for actual samples, but unfortunately soil acidity in the NW doesn't help preserving organic matter.

Also if we look at estimated population densities from 1800AD the Minho and Douro Litoral were heavily populated compared to everywhere else. Naturally this didn't stop at the river either because populations in either side of the river had extensive contacts with each other. https://i.postimg.cc/NgtxvHK1/evolucao-populacao-portugal.png
I don't have any actual sources, but I'm pretty sure the high density of freguesias in the NW is a consequence of the multitude of parishes that were present in the middle ages when the country was still young. For example Barcelos, where part of my family comes from, used to have 89 and currently still has 61.

jose luis
02-10-2022, 07:08 PM
1) Actually even ancient sources actually have a hard time distinguishing between both Lusitanian and Gallaecians and generally equate them, I suggest you read Stabo Geographica's Book 3 where it is explicitly mentioned that the populations north of the Douro used to be called Lusitanians.


"Today" means around the time of Augustus, or Caesar, about a thousand years after the establishment of castros which date back to the late Bronze Age all the way until the early Roman period. As said in other topics celticisation of western Iberia was a late event within the peninsula when compared to the Meseta, and was still ongoing during the early Roman administration of the territories as we see Celtiberian-specific anthroponyms and theonyms in formerly Lusitanian-speaking territories.

2) "Elementary", yet you provide no sources for a dialectal difference between the regions during the times of the Roman Empire. In fact you don't ever provide sources.

3) You could likewise use that argument for linking Gallaecia and Murcia, since they were both in Hispania Tarraconensis.

4.1) I don't know what you mean by "rebirth of the most archaic populations". There's no archaeological samples from the pre-Roman, Roman, nor post-Roman periods in Galicia nor Portugal, so we can't actually say anything concrete, let alone talk about its "rebirth".
For what is worth the lands north of the Douro, particularly further inland, were extensively exploited by Rome due to their mineral riches, particularly gold, and therefore used a large amount of slaves in order to operate them - if anything it should have seen a greater transformation that other, poorer, parts of the peninsula.
https://i.postimg.cc/yNj0vk6c/Mining-Roman-Empire.jpg

4.2) The border existed between the decade of the 990s to the decade of 1050s, Lamego and Viseu were last taken in 1057 and 1058 respectively. Yes, that did leave a slight toponymic mark, but to consider it a great border is an overstatement considering you ignore the rest of the country. As an example the amount of Arabic hydronyms north of the Douro are 0, between the Douro and Mondego they amount to ~2% (3 rivers), yet it's ~13% between the Mondego and Tejo, and over 20% south of the Tejo until the Algarve.
https://i.postimg.cc/WpfpcQsx/Hidrotoponimos-Portugal.png
If we could talk about a hard historical border between Christians and Muslims it was somewhere south of the Sistema Central.

5) They have plenty of samples from Porto and Lisbon, and while the latter attracted people from all over the country, the former was mostly a destination for northerners. You talk about a "Douro frontier" yet have no issues saying Porto attracted people from everywhere. Not much of a border then, was it? My own family comes form both sides of the river, again I don't see a border considering back in the early days of the country we know of at least 12 barge-crossing areas between the Foz and the areas further inland of Porto/Viseu districts.
Regardless the results are published and there's no statistical difference between both groups https://i.postimg.cc/ssYTqnsn/k7.png

As for the second study you're ignoring the word geographic in "No fine-scale geographic information was available for these individuals , so we placed them randomly within the boundaries of Portugal" meaning they don't know where they're originally from, but in the end it didn't matter because with one exception all individuals were placed in the same cluster. The studies do make fine-scaling analysis, just because you're unhappy with the results doesn't make them "low scientific value". Even if they were bad studies, which they are not, only one of us is basing their arguments on scientific data.
The rest of your point 5 is just your personal bias, I've seen results from people all over the country, from urban areas to rural areas, form north to south, from the coastal areas to the interior, and so far there are no outliers - Portuguese are quite homogenous, and these two studies show why. In fact it was rather predictable considering the borders have remain virtually unchanged since 1248, and populations within stable political entities tend to homogenise over the generations. I seriously suggest you take a look at genealogy, hopefully your bias about "less educated people" will fade, my own familiar background is exclusively rural and historically poor.



I asked for sources, at the moment you provided a total of 0. If you cant back up your claims with actual sources people can access don't bother posting.
The discussion was moved away from the French study, it was going too off-track and was unrelated to it.


Edit: Even if you look at outdated data, like pigmentation studies from the 20th century, there doesn't seem to be much of a divide along the Douro.
https://portuguesephenotype.blogspot.com/2014/01/cartografia.html


1) The Douro as a frontier until after the Roman Empire:
Fixed territory markers, such as rivers, are preferred over moveable landmarks. Rivers only became means of communication after the popularization of Egyptian sails and better with lateen sails, until then they made communications difficult. According to the epigraphy, despite all its power the Roman Empire never managed to detribalize Portugal and also used the Douro as a frontier. As such, the Douro certainly continued to serve as a frontier, even after the Roman Empire. Until when I don't know.

2) Galician Latin and Lusitanian Latin:
Nobody is permanently giving the sources of the specialized information they publish, much less when it's commonly known subjects like this. After reading so many books especially when it's been a long time like these basics, I have a hard time discerning which one is the source of the data. I transcribe the essentials of the three volumes of an encyclopedic dimension, "Grammar of Portuguese" - Eduardo Buzaglo Paiva Raposo, Maria Fernanda Bacelar do Nascimento, Maria Antónia Coelho da Mota, Luísa Seguro, Amália Mendes, Graça Vicente, Rita Veloso, published by Gulbenkian.
Chapter 1.1:
My translation:
"In a region that was not very accessible and later Romanized...corresponding to the Roman provinces of Gallaecia and Asturica...the variety of Latin spoken there followed, from the V-VI centuries, its own evolution, distinct from that of its region neighbors. These were Lusitânia...of ancient and conservative romanization...and Tarraconensis. These regions already distinguished themselves in Roman times, due to factors such as the peoples who inhabited them before, the time when they were reduced to the dominion of rome and the characteristics of the agents of that colonization. The Latin spoken in each of them would aggravate their differences when the Empire lost cohesion and Rome its centrality. ...Some phonological changes, unparalleled in the other Romance languages...played an important role in the reconfiguration of the new romance...The first of these phenomena constitutes a sure criterion for distinguishing the original Galician and Portuguese lexicon from Leonese and Castilian...and also from a Lusitanian romance"
Chapter 1.2:
"The origin of the Portuguese language is not found, therefore, in Lusitanian Latin (whose descendants were short-lived, leaving only traces in the current Alentejo and Algarve dialects), but in Northwest Latin.
Original:
"Numa região pouco acessível e tardiamente romanizada...correspondendo à província romana Gallaecia e Asturica...a variedade do latim falado aí falado seguiu , a partir dos sec. V-VI, uma evolução própria, distinta da que sofreram as regiões suas vizinhas. Estas eram a Lusitânia,...de romanização antiga e conservadora,...e a Tarraconensis. Estas regiões já destinguiam na época romana, por acção de fatores como os povos que antes as habitavam, a época em que foram reduzidas ao domínio de roma e as características dos agentes dessa colonização. O latim falado em cada uma delas agravaria as suas diferenças quando o Império perdeu coesão e Roma a sua centralidade. ...Algumas mudanças fonológicas, sem paralelo nas outras línguas românicas,...tiveram um papel importante na reconfiguração do novo romance...O primeiro destes fenómenos constitui um critério seguro para distinguir o léxico originário galego e português do leonês e do castelhano...e também de um romance Lusitânico"
Capítulo 1.2:
"A origem da língua portuguesa não se encontra, pois, no latim lusitânico (cuja descendência teve vida curta, deixando apenas vestígios nos atuais dialectos alentejanos e algarvios), mas no latim do Noroeste.

https://www.wook.pt/livro/gramatica-do-portugues-volume-i/15272392

4) Rebirth of archaic populations during the reconquest:
Yet another elementary matter. Traditionally it was said that the region had been completely depopulated, but the historiographical investigation concluded that, free from servitude, the servants of the land had prospered during those 60 years. Serfs certainly had their origins in the Hispanics, who largely before that had been the autochthonous populations that served the Roman Empire but maintained their tribal allegiances.


5) Portuguese genetics:
The Portuguese population is concentrated on the coast between Lisbon, Porto and Minho. The depopulated south does not seem to distance Lisbon from the northern coastal fusion. The final stretch of rivers is not a border because never broke down communications, even before the Egyptians. There the current is slower, it reverses with high tide and the afternoon breezes go up the rivers perpendicular to the coast, which makes it possible to go up the river without great effort.
I never doubted that the Portuguese in general were a homogeneous population. I don't need sources, if you say you have the DNA of the losers of history, those who always try to hide their origins, threatened, even by the other losers, I accept. Now, I am waiting for a fine-grained study as was done in Great Britain and Ireland, especially one that includes the Alto Minho, the eastern end of Trás-os-Montes, the lands of Riba coa (which only passed definitively to Portugal with the treaty of Alcanizes in 1297 and still have leonese traditions), Belmonte, certain localities in the Vouga and Sado valleys (where the sub-Saharan traces of the population are visible), and which do not leave undiscovered clusters such as those that certainly remain to be discovered in the Pontevedra region. I want to see these rivers, these ridgelines.