>>17436578
>>17436619
>But if you were asking how much Iberian DNA nafri's have, then it's usually up to around 15%, most of this is "recent" as it came from Arab appointed Iberians governing North African holdings for the Moors

When is people going to realize that the ""northafrican"" in Iberia is the same as the "English" in Denmark, the Finnish in Korea or the "amerindian" in Scandinavia??

It is DNA companies MIXING UP groups that some times in the past shared ancestry (without considering the direction of the movement).

All that """northafrican""" is NEOLITHIC IBERIAN DNA that crossed to NorthAfrica and now is labeled as """northafrican"" so Iberians get ancient Neolithic DNA named as "northafrican"

That is the reason why it is stupid to think that people in the top NW corner of Spain have the highest northafrican when there were NEVER any settlement (not prehistoric not in medieval times with the fake AlAndalus) related to northafricans there. At least the south should have a lot more (after 700 years) but they don´t, so it is fake.

Galicians are more isolated and that is why they retain the old components better (old neolithic DNA).

Do people realize that Danish people get a 10-15% of "English" DNA?? NO. It is not English, it is old Anglo-Jutes DNA from Denmark to England but DNA companies mix everything up and that is why they say stupidities.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/his/

Thread:

Why does Galicia have more “North African” admixture than southern Spain even though the former was occupied the least, and the latter was occupied…