# Population Genetics > Autosomal Genetics >  Significant Iberian autosomal admixture on K36 in some Brits

## mihaitzateo

Hello

Looking on K36 results I have noticed in some Brits a significant percentage of Iberian admixture.
What you think is the source of this admixture?

I think as possibility,that maybe some of the ancient Celts were bearers of Iberian admixture,besides other admixtures.
I know that current Iberians have some African admixture,but that is because of Moors,so the fact that current Iberians have African admixture and Brits do not have,is not a proof (that ancient Celts were not bearers of Iberian admixture).That admixture (African) got in current Iberians less than 1000 years ago.While Iberian admixture could be common to people from Great Britain and Iberia from more thousands of years ago.
Sure,there are not so many results on K36,to say something clearly,but I saw that also that some Norwegians have Iberian admixture.
Since Roman Empire never got till Scandinavia,a source that could explain the presence of Iberian admixture in some Norwegians could be the women that they took from Scotland and Ireland (which had Iberian admixture).

----------


## Nobody1

My tip:

Bell-beaker culture;
Not Keltic not Indo-European (Keltic) but strongly associated with Iberia;

----------


## Drac II

> Hello
> 
> Looking on K36 results I have noticed in some Brits a significant percentage of Iberian admixture.
> What you think is the source of this admixture?
> 
> I think as possibility,that maybe some of the ancient Celts were bearers of Iberian admixture,besides other admixtures.
> I know that current Iberians have some African admixture,but that is because of Moors,so the fact that current Iberians have African admixture and Brits do not have,is not a proof (that ancient Celts were not bearers of Iberian admixture).That admixture (African) got in current Iberians less than 1000 years ago.While Iberian admixture could be common to people from Great Britain and Iberia from more thousands of years ago.
> Sure,there are not so many results on K36,to say something clearly,but I saw that also that some Norwegians have Iberian admixture.
> Since Roman Empire never got till Scandinavia,a source that could explain the presence of Iberian admixture in some Norwegians could be the women that they took from Scotland and Ireland (which had Iberian admixture).


False, on all counts. African (both North and sub-Saharan) DNA has been detected in the British Isles as well (lower than in southern Europe, but present nonetheless), and so far I have never seen any proof that all African DNA in Iberia has to be due to "Moors".

----------


## Ziober

> My tip:
> 
> Bell-beaker culture;
> Not Keltic not Indo-European (Keltic) but strongly associated with Iberia;


Bell-beaker culture completely IE as R1b they were. and the ancestors of the celts indeed. the IEans settled western europe from Iberia.

----------


## adamo

Nice to see you again, my Zio-ber! Personally I believe that during the Paleolithic the men of hg I (I2 notably) were more widespread across central Europe but the ice age forced them back towards the Bosnian refuge (I2) and the Iberian refuge (I1) from where the I1 men in particular would later expand towards Scandinavia.

----------


## MOESAN

"iberian" DNA does not signify post-celtic settlement DNA; it can be arrived there sooner (and, less credible, but possible for a tiny part) later -

----------


## gervais

I think "iberian" DNA does not signify necessarily "born" in the Iberian Peninsula!

With commons ancestors, whose descendants went to the Iberian Peninsula through France, the other (a little) to the British Isles

----------


## Aberdeen

> Hello
> 
> Looking on K36 results I have noticed in some Brits a significant percentage of Iberian admixture.
> What you think is the source of this admixture?
> 
> I think as possibility,that maybe some of the ancient Celts were bearers of Iberian admixture,besides other admixtures.
> I know that current Iberians have some African admixture,but that is because of Moors,so the fact that current Iberians have African admixture and Brits do not have,is not a proof (that ancient Celts were not bearers of Iberian admixture).That admixture (African) got in current Iberians less than 1000 years ago.While Iberian admixture could be common to people from Great Britain and Iberia from more thousands of years ago.
> Sure,there are not so many results on K36,to say something clearly,but I saw that also that some Norwegians have Iberian admixture.
> Since Roman Empire never got till Scandinavia,a source that could explain the presence of Iberian admixture in some Norwegians could be the women that they took from Scotland and Ireland (which had Iberian admixture).


IMO, "Iberian admixture" simply means a fair bit of neolithic farmer ancestry. I think Iberia, Britain and Ireland were less impacted in turns of population turnover by the IE expansion than, for example, Germany, at least on an autosomal level.

----------


## MOESAN

1- as said Drac II the Moors are not particularly responsible for sub-saharian DNA in Iberia - these traces of S-Sahar- DNA can have had different sources at different times, and some of them at Mesolithic or even at Paleolithic time - a north african Neolithic is not excluded too...
concerning Britain, the S-Sahar- DNA could be very old but I believe more in a more recent slaves origin, without put a penny on it - 
concerning europoid iberian DNA in Britain, it could be as old as final Mesolithic (long time after LGM melting) - surely the Neolithic farmers and breeders send a lot of the 'iberian' DNA we remark today in Britain (all of them of southern origin: the first and second possible waves of 'mediterranean' people in occidental Europe - the 'Long Barrows' megalither people did the same work (maybe even more denser) - 
I think the Celts were not the first providers of this DNA but as thay seem having colonized early enough the Atlantic shores (part of the relatively diverse so called 'atlantic bronze'), taking the hold from 'Long Barrows' descendants they could have added a light 'iberian taste' to the first imputs in Britain - 
I add this 'iberian' element could contain a 'basque' mesolithical slight element too, but I don't know if in this pooling 'basque' and 'iberian' were separated?

----------


## martiko

> 1- as said Drac II the Moors are not particularly responsible for sub-saharian DNA in Iberia - these traces of S-Sahar- DNA can have had different sources at different times, and some of them at Mesolithic or even at Paleolithic time - a north african Neolithic is not excluded too...
> concerning Britain, the S-Sahar- DNA could be very old but I believe more in a more recent slaves origin, without put a penny on it - 
> concerning europoid iberian DNA in Britain, it could be as old as final Mesolithic (long time after LGM melting) - surely the Neolithic farmers and breeders send a lot of the 'iberian' DNA we remark today in Britain (all of them of southern origin: the first and second possible waves of 'mediterranean' people in occidental Europe - the 'Long Barrows' megalither people did the same work (maybe even more denser) - 
> I think the Celts were not the first providers of this DNA but as thay seem having colonized early enough the Atlantic shores (part of the relatively diverse so called 'atlantic bronze'), taking the hold from 'Long Barrows' descendants they could have added a light 'iberian taste' to the first imputs in Britain - 
> I add this 'iberian' element could contain a 'basque' mesolithical slight element too, but I don't know if in this pooling 'basque' and 'iberian' were separated?


I think that K36 is suspicious.
K36 has no good calibrations at first and I assume that the same result for Spanishes and English as much as for basques shows the vagueness of references and K12b, World9... is even worse and with MDLP World it is a disaster!

----------


## Tone

Megalith Builders?

----------


## martiko

> I add this 'iberian' element could contain a 'basque' mesolithical slight element too, but I don't know if in this pooling 'basque' and 'iberian' were separated?


 You certainty or belief, but if you have the facts? genetic, archaeological, cultural or linguistic.

----------


## MOESAN

> You certainty or belief, but if you have the facts? genetic, archaeological, cultural or linguistic.


sorry, I should have looked at the K36 question: yes, they separated 'iberian' from' basque' so...
otherwise, I have no precise answer to do, except the physical anthropology has ever said southern elements went to the Great Isles at least at Neolithical times, and some types found in Britain-Ireland were of the same stock as others found in Mediterranea, and Atlantic shores of Iberia, France and the Isles (and even farther to Scandinvia in smaller number - for archeology, the Megalithic period and then the bronze Age (not completely uniform but with evident inter-links) show evident exchanges between S-W and N-W Europe - 
on an other hand, I think this 36 pools resolution is to fragmented to be serious concerning autosomals - 
nos vad deoc'h -

----------


## martiko

> sorry, I should have looked at the K36 question: yes, they separated 'iberian' from' basque' so...
> otherwise, I have no precise answer to do, except the physical anthropology has ever said southern elements went to the Great Isles at least at Neolithical times, and some types found in Britain-Ireland were of the same stock as others found in Mediterranea, and Atlantic shores of Iberia, France and the Isles (and even farther to Scandinvia in smaller number - for archeology, the Megalithic period and then the bronze Age (not completely uniform but with evident inter-links) show evident exchanges between S-W and N-W Europe - 
> on an other hand, I think this 36 pools resolution is to fragmented to be serious concerning autosomals - 
> nos vad deoc'h -


 appears significant in the western zonne, Celtic iberian or former Beaker, the Iberian pnonsule exclusively P312/M65; M65 that does not exist in the Basque majority DF27 and second L21 and it turns out that is negative for M65 and L21 df27 . Indeed you are correct only on the fact that a large part of Spanish marker of central, northern and north-east migrated from the north (France).
But for periods of early Neolithic or earlier; much M65, DF27, L21 are notably absent.
Even Basque or Celtic languages ​​seem to date to the Celtic end of the Neolithic and the Basque ONLY the 7/8th century AD. The only language that can prove most seniority is iberian appears to be linked to I2a1 and Aquitaine with I2b, but it is that difficult today because no speaker of iberian and Aquitaine langage consists only of quellques words and especially place names that have survived (and some attribute to Basque by mistake).
The DF27 and L21 are from France and probably of the Loire (formerly Novempulanie) and the French Brittany.
But France is not found either previous track in the late Neolithic to L11 ; It will be difficult to demonstrate a Mesolithic origin in this case for DF27 peoples and therefore L21 particularly concerned Basque and Irish.
It is true that before the advances in genetics it cost nothing to give them free as former European.

----------


## MOESAN

We were, I think, speaking about autosomals: so I don't rely here on Y-HGs: surely the diverse Y-R1b had females with them, but he mtDNA distribution, very more variated, seem showing that positive drifts occurred for Y-HG (genetical but also social-political, male dominance) or/and that these R1B took local females, so their autosomals too - (I believe former Basques had more Y-I2a1) -
linguistically it is very possible that Basque language arrived lately enough, maybe along I-E speaking tribes, from N-East? it could be that an iberian or an aquitan language is older in place than believed until now and was (were) sweeped ahead by I-E newcomers in North and Western Iberia?
all the way, I think the autsomals pooling have to improve yet
good night

----------

