Revised reconstruction of Bronze Age Scottish woman based on analyzed snps

[Angela]

I don't think there needs to be any more incredulity at the fact that British people can naturally be black haired and brown eyed: no need for "foreign" ancestry.

See:
https://www.archaeology.org/news/7178-181203-scotland-ava-genome

"BBC News reports that analysis of DNA obtained from the bones of a woman who died in what is now Scotland more than 4,250 years ago offers a new interpretation of her possible appearance and ancestry. The remains of the woman, now known as Ava, were discovered in a rock-cut tomb during road construction in 1987. An earlier reconstruction suggested she had red hair and blue eyes, but the latest analysis of her genome indicates she actually had brown eyes and black hair. The data also suggests she was lactose intolerant, and was descended from northern European migrants to Britain. “The revelation that her ancestors were recent northern European migrants is exciting, especially as we know that she has no, or very few, genetic connections with the local Neolithic population who resided in Caithness before her,” said archaeologist Maya Hoole of Historic Environment Scotland. "

Original reconstruction:

New reconstruction:

Aiden Turner:

Kit Harrington:

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

In your opinion then, where did British red hair come from? I absolutely know you won't answer this, as you never ever do, but the fact is that there wasn't a single redhead found in the British Beaker samples (and I think only 2 or 3 among ALL of the Beaker samples). Something must be up with these phenotype calculators - not calling conspiracy or anything, but they must not be too accurate as it just doesn't make sense.

From the skull, it does indeed look like Ava would be Borreby (as per the original reconstruction), which you would assume means lighter phenotype. The updated phenotype basically is not characteristic of any population - the morphology is not Mediterranean in any sense of the word, the closest approximation given absence of light pigmentation alleles rather would be some kind of paleo-Atlantid, which isn't nearly as dark as is being portrayed.

If I saw this updated reconstruction in the flesh, I could only guess that she was Latino, and I think most would agree.

So yeah, I'm skeptical that this was actually what this Bell Beaker woman looked like.

 

[Angela]

Of course you are...

Borreby is a term for a type of human who lived in Paleolithic Europe, and so would have been dark-haired, dark-skinned, and dark eyed.

"Borreby is the name of a Danish village and archaeological site where large brachycranial skulls of the Upper Paleolithic were unearthed.

Blue eyes appeared in the Mesolithic, but western hunter gatherers were still black haired and dark skinned, darker skinned, at least, than the Anatolian farmers who migrated to Europe.

This information is years and years old, yet you've never heard of it? I keep on telling you to read the papers but you refuse. Then you complain because I don't respond to totally uninformed comments like this.

I advise you to stop reading nonsense from racist anthrofora, and not even "recent" stuff from racist anthrofora. Reading them rots the brain.

You are the one who complained, so you have no one to blame but yourself for the answer.

If you knew anything about genetics you'd know that snps are snps. De-pigmentation snps either exist or they don't. If a sample has the snps for dark hair and eyes that's just the way it is. The genomes are freely available. You think all the labs in the world and all the population geneticists are in cahoots together to change the appearance of ancient peoples? . That's tin foil hat territory. All this talk of conspiracies just makes you look foolish.

As for red hair, it is recessive. Both parents have to have the gene. (I, for example, got one allele for it, and still have dark brown hair.) Therefore, it peaks in the more isolated corners of Europe. If I had to guess I would say it was brought to the British Isles with the Danes and other Northmen and Anglo-Saxons, and not at all with Bell Beaker. We have quite a few samples of the ones who went to the British Isles, and, indeed, blonde hair and blue eyes were the minority, and red hair was exceedingly rare. By the way, red hair is closer to brown hair than to blonde hair. Look up the genetics of red hair.

I absolutely don't get your obsession with red hair. It's very much a minority trait in Europe, and one that a lot of people think is quite unattractive, although I'm not one of them. At least Fire-Haired had the excuse that he himself had red hair.

Btw, the pseudo-Latino look might have something to do with the high EHG in these people, EHG with a lot of ANE, also high in Amerindians. Go look up some pictures of Finns with their 10% Siberian and imagine them with dark hair and eyes.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Of course you are...

Borreby is a term for a type of human who lived in Paleolithic Europe, and so would have been dark-haired, dark-skinned, and dark eyed.

"Borreby is the name of a Danish village and archaeological site where large brachycranial skulls of the Upper Paleolithic were unearthed.

Blue eyes appeared in the Mesolithic, but western hunter gatherers were still black haired and dark skinned, darker skinned, at least, than the Anatolian farmers who migrated to Europe.

This information is years and years old, yet you've never heard of it? I keep on telling you to read the papers but you refuse. Then you complain because I don't respond to totally uninformed comments like this.

I advise you to stop reading nonsense from racist anthrofora, and not even "recent" stuff from racist anthrofora. Reading them rots the brain.

You are the one who complained, so you have no one to blame but yourself for the answer.

If you knew anything about genetics you'd know that snps are snps. De-pigmentation snps either exist or they don't. If a sample has the snps for dark hair and eyes that's just the way it is. The genomes are freely available. You think all the labs in the world and all the population geneticists are in cahoots together to change the appearance of ancient peoples? . That's tin foil hat territory. All this talk of conspiracies just makes you look foolish.

As for red hair, it is recessive. Both parents have to have the gene. (I, for example, got one allele for it, and still have dark brown hair.) Therefore, it peaks in the more isolated corners of Europe. If I had to guess I would say it was brought to the British Isles with the Danes and other Northmen and Anglo-Saxons, and not at all with Bell Beaker. We have quite a few samples of the ones who went to the British Isles, and, indeed, blonde hair and blue eyes were the minority, and red hair was exceedingly rare. By the way, red hair is closer to brown hair than to blonde hair. Look up the genetics of red hair.

I absolutely don't get your obsession with red hair. It's very much a minority trait in Europe, and one that a lot of people think is quite unattractive, although I'm not one of them. At least Fire-Haired had the excuse that he himself had red hair.

Btw, the pseudo-Latino look might have something to do with the high EHG in these people, EHG with a lot of ANE, also high in Amerindians. Go look up some pictures of Finns with their 10% Siberian and imagine them with dark hair and eyes.

I know about those papers, I know pretty much about all the papers despite not reading through most of them. We're not looking at a Mesolithic Scot though are we? Besides, I suspect Borreby was light pigmented - it wasn't like the other WHGs, as it was relatively short-headed.

And it really doesn't rot the brain - not least because of how many predictions Coon got right. It's pretty astounding to be honest - his only major blunder was his Iron Age Nordic, but even then all he got wrong was its location and date of formation - it being Corded+Danubian, as we know from Scandinavia, is spot on.

Why is it that you have to be so womanly - you know I know what SNPs are. Stop with the strawman arguments, when I clearly never said it was a conspiracy. On and on the online forum parenting goes...

You'd also be wrong to say that red hair was brought to the British Isles by various Germanic tribes, as you would expect an inverse relationship with Ireland - yet Ireland is famous for its red hair. The correlation with R1b, particularly L21, is the best fit - Maciamo (and others of course) saw that over 5 years ago. In fact, the East coast of England is the least rufous in the British Isles.

As for my obsession with red hair - I don't deny it, but it's because it is a useful phenotypical population marker. If you see a mummy with wavy red hair in Peru, would that not interest you?

And what a joke, how does that woman look Latino because of EHG - YOU clearly don't know what EHG looked like. She looks Latino because she has a wide face with mild prognathism and a mesorrhine nose, combined with her pigmentation and eye form.

I'm fully aware this hasn't been paragraphed well by the way, but I'm tired.

 

[Joey37]

I have a feeling she may be the wife or daughter of an invading Celt from the Continent and perhaps have some Neolithic farmer blood.

 

[Angela]

I have a feeling she may be the wife or daughter of an invading Celt from the Continent and perhaps have some Neolithic farmer blood.

Except that they've analyzed her genome and she doesn't.

Upon reflection, Harrington and Turner may show a bit of British Neolithic resurgence, as does Colin Farrell.

These may be closer in looks to our Beaker girl, Ava.

Charlie Murphy:

Gemma Atherton:

Lots of it among the Welsh: Catherine Zeta-Jones

Kelly Jones:

Tom Cullen:

 

[leperrine]

Reminds me of my grandmother. She was Irish/German.

 

[Angela]

I have a feeling she may be the wife or daughter of an invading Celt from the Continent and perhaps have some Neolithic farmer blood.

Sorry, Joey, I think I misunderstood you and was misleading in my answer. Of course, as a Beaker from the continent she would have had a lot of Neolithic farmer ancestry, up to 1/2.

It's just that she didn't have British Neolithic ancestry.

 

[Joey37]

Thank you, that is what I meant. And leperrine, your grandmother reminds me of my Nana. Her mother was Irish and German, but her father was Sicilian, parents having just had come to America when he was born. Although Nana is probably shorter than your grandmother, being only 4'11", I love her she thinks I'm tall (I'm 5'9")

 

[Alyan]

I know about those papers, I know pretty much about all the papers despite not reading through most of them. We're not looking at a Mesolithic Scot though are we? Besides, I suspect Borreby was light pigmented - it wasn't like the other WHGs, as it was relatively short-headed.

And it really doesn't rot the brain - not least because of how many predictions Coon got right. It's pretty astounding to be honest - his only major blunder was his Iron Age Nordic, but even then all he got wrong was its location and date of formation - it being Corded+Danubian, as we know from Scandinavia, is spot on.

Why is it that you have to be so womanly - you know I know what SNPs are. Stop with the strawman arguments, when I clearly never said it was a conspiracy. On and on the online forum parenting goes...

You'd also be wrong to say that red hair was brought to the British Isles by various Germanic tribes, as you would expect an inverse relationship with Ireland - yet Ireland is famous for its red hair. The correlation with R1b, particularly L21, is the best fit - Maciamo (and others of course) saw that over 5 years ago. In fact, the East coast of England is the least rufous in the British Isles.

As for my obsession with red hair - I don't deny it, but it's because it is a useful phenotypical population marker. If you see a mummy with wavy red hair in Peru, would that not interest you?

And what a joke, how does that woman look Latino because of EHG - YOU clearly don't know what EHG looked like. She looks Latino because she has a wide face with mild prognathism and a mesorrhine nose, combined with her pigmentation and eye form.

I'm fully aware this hasn't been paragraphed well by the way, but I'm tired.

Where's the Euro DNA in all the recent Amerindian samples?

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Where's the Euro DNA in all the recent Amerindian samples?

You mean to say you need ancient DNA to figure out whether those remains are of typical Native Americans? Two words: cognitive dissonance. Here's some more if you want, guess the odd one out...

 

[Alyan]

You didn't actually answer the question. Where's the Euro DNA?

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

You didn't actually answer the question. Where's the Euro DNA?

There have only been a handful of samples so far, however some of the Paracas skulls have been privately (so, you can call foul if you really wish to) tested and found to possess European mtDNA (lots being U2e1, and the rest being H2a, H1 and T2b so far I believe - with only a handful of Amerindian lineages). I take it you are purposefully setting a narrow frame of discussion so as to avoid talking about those obvious photos, but whatever - I've come to grow tired of dishonest discourse.

See here: https://www.gofundme.com/paracas-elongated-skull-dna-tests and check the updates section. Bear in mind the guy seems to believe they could be part alien - but that doesn't mean he's fabricating results.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

You didn't actually answer the question. Where's the Euro DNA?

Anything to say?

 

[Alyan]

So nothing peer reviewed then. I see.

Tell me how there can be a European presence yet just about no European DNA in the Amerindians. That's not what happened in other cases where two significantly populated races/ethnicities were close to each-other (Arabs in Africa, Moors in Spain, Spanish in Central America, India with its caste).

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

You didn't actually answer the question. Where's the Euro DNA?

There are thousands of these clearly pred. European skulls in the hands of private collectors, it's only a matter of time until the bubble bursts. I wonder what the media response will be.

 

[Alyan]

It won't since we keep finding old remains with no Euro DNA.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

So nothing peer reviewed then. I see.

Tell me how there can be a European presence yet just about no European DNA in the Amerindians. That's not what happened in other cases where two significantly populated races/ethnicities were close to each-other (Arabs in Africa, Moors in Spain, Spanish in Central America, India with its caste).

Well, there is a European genomic presence in e.g. Peruvian Amerindians, it's just mostly put down to post-Columbus admix. Also, these people were described as elites in traditional folk stories (Were the Natives lying about this too? What about Pizarro?), and the cultures they initiated showed signs of elite presence and large hierarchies, despite having no concept of money.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

It won't since we keep finding old remains with no Euro DNA.

Well, maybe so, but don't you think it's convenient that they filter samples with European admixture as being contaminated? And when samples are tested, they are immediately given to surrounding tribes for reburial, presumably never to be seen again. The Spirit Cave mummy preserved red hair and some light skin, yet that wasn't shown from his genome. With private collections, this method of censorship (if it exists) will not hold up.

I'm pretty sure this will all come out at least within the next two years or so. Look into Thor Heyerdahl, by the way:

 

[Alyan]

Well, there is a European genomic presence in e.g. Peruvian Amerindians, it's just mostly put down to post-Columbus admix.

No Euro in Ancient Peru either.

Also, these people were described as elites in traditional folk stories (Were the Natives lying about this too? What about Pizarro?)

Name a single strictly indigenous source that mentions racially separate rulers.

and the cultures they initiated showed signs of elite presence and large hierarchies, despite having no concept of money.

Central and South America had them since they had environments conductive to them. While North America didn't.