First modern Britons had 'dark to black' skin, Cheddar Man DNA analysis reveals

Personally, I'm not upset, but doubtful concerning the reality of a total blackness of Cheddar man skin, but who knows at this stage?

Maybe I red too quickly and misundertood something, maybe it was not the same paper!
ATW the presence since maybe a long time in Africa of diverse states of genes responsible for pigmentation seems possible, and is the cause of the variability among "Blacks". Interesting is the fact that some traits unifying Africans and South-East Asians seem produced by the same genetic basis, and not by convergence, at the contrary of the similituies for pigmentation between East Asians and Europeans.
So the link; I 'll read it again, slowly.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-10-genes-responsible-diversity-human-skin.html

People intrested could discuss this in Anthropology -pigmentation.
 
abstract of report
Ann GIBBONS, 'Science' review journalist (so a second hand report!)
[...The team also found variants of two neighboring genes, HERC2 and OCA2, which are associated with light skin, eyes, and hair in Europeans but arose in Africa; these variants are ancient and common in the light-skinned San people. The team proposes that the variants arose in Africa as early as 1 million years ago and spread later to Europeans and Asians. “Many of the gene variants that cause light skin in Europe have origins in Africa,” Tishkoff says.

The most dramatic discovery concerned a gene known as MFSD12. Two mutations that decrease expression of this gene were found in high frequencies in people with the darkest skin. These variants arose about a half-million years ago, suggesting that human ancestors before that time may have had moderately dark skin, rather than the deep black hue created today by these mutations.

These same two variants are found in Melanesians, Australian Aborigines, and some Indians. These people may have inherited the variants from ancient migrants from Africa who followed a “southern route” out of East Africa, along the southern coast of India to Melanesia and Australia, Tishkoff says. That idea, however, counters three genetic studies that concluded last year that Australians, Melanesians, and Eurasians all descend from a single migration out of Africa. Alternatively, this great migration may have included people carrying variants for both light and dark skin, but the dark variants later were lost in Eurasians. ...]
 
I feel even after the neolithic and indo-european expansions, if most of the european HG's were very dark skinned, that feature would still exist in today's time. It is a dominant traits and even if europe is very mixed now, there is here and there some pockets, especially in mountainous area were those features could survive. I feel that a lot of country still have some darkish features that clearly aren't sun related, like for exemple Romania ( even if it can be related with Roms ).
View attachment 9728 Romanian young woman.
 
I think at the end of the day, in this community at least, nobody is fascinating by a whatever racial agenda, like it change nothing to europe, it doesn't condemn, doesn't justify anything. I remember at the time of the La Brana reconstruction some people on the internet tried to push a libertarian agenda about it, but the argument are always a non-sens, like for exemple what would a 10'000 BC individual skin color have to do with a political acceptance ? nothing. Edit: Btw, the article is very surprising they act like this is something new, of course we all know here about the La Brana individual, they also state that this is the first and oldest individual discovered in England, i supposed, but what about the Red Lady of Paviland ( that is in Wales i know ) but they state Britons so they mean all the Great-Britain i guess... Idk they are researcher but i feel they dont really know a lot about the settlement of Europe.
 
halfalp said:
I think at the end of the day, in this community at least, nobody is fascinating by a whatever racial agenda, like it change nothing to europe, it doesn't condemn, doesn't justify anything. I remember at the time of the La Brana reconstruction some people on the internet tried to push a libertarian agenda about it, but the argument are always a non-sens, like for exemple what would a 10'000 BC individual skin color have to do with a political acceptance ? nothing. Edit: Btw, the article is very surprising they act like this is something new, of course we all know here about the La Brana individual, they also state that this is the first and oldest individual discovered in England, i supposed, but what about the Red Lady of Paviland ( that is in Wales i know ) but they state Britons so they mean all the Great-Britain i guess... Idk they are researcher but i feel they dont really know a lot about the settlement of Europe.
Click to expand...

yes, it is TV
they want to make it credible and interesting and spectacular for the spectators but not necessary truthfull
their title 'first modern Britons' is already wrong
 
bicicleur said:
yes, it is TV
they want to make it credible and interesting and spectacular for the spectators but not necessary truthfull
their title 'first modern Britons' is already wrong
Click to expand...

Yes, Mr Cheddar is not very "modern" ;)
 
Lol

Why don't they really make this interesting and publish "First white person discovered in ancient Russia" next week.

Evil white Russian men are conspiring to undermine the democracy of the black Britons.
 
This does not make any sense. How come Early Europeans were black, but Africans are still black? What made Europeans turn white, and stopped Africans from changing the skin color?
 
^^Please read post number 34 and go to the papers in the links.
 
Moesan mentioned a "Veddoid" look in terms of skin color. I think it may apply to features as well.

p14210.jpg


Or, how about him?
152256476.0koXp1ED.VeddaSriLanka.jpg


I think he's from Sri Lanka.
 
noman said:
This does not make any sense. How come Early Europeans were black, but Africans are still black? What made Europeans turn white, and stopped Africans from changing the skin color?
Click to expand...

It is most likely an error ...........If he was that Black he would most likely got rickets disease in those ancient times .............he was probably a brownish colour and not sub-saharan black as drawn
 
cheese-statue_684867n.jpg


A closer color of the Cheddar Man than black sub-saharan african photo. These Cheddar men are made of real cheese.

A visit to any county or state fair will have butter or cheddar sculptures closer to the real complexion of the man from Cheddar than photo provided in the original post.
 
Fascinating. He was ORANGE? :rolleyes:

We've known that the WHG were probably darker than any modern West Eurasians for years. What did you people expect?

Responses like this almost make me wish he was as black as the ace of spades. However, I'll keep it objective. If he was derived at least for KITLG he probably wasn't.
 
Angela said:
Fascinating. He was ORANGE? :rolleyes:

We've known that the WHG were probably darker than any modern West Eurasians for years. What did you people expect?

Responses like this almost make me wish he was as black as the ace of spades. However, I'll keep it objective. If he was derived at least for KITLG he probably wasn't.
Click to expand...

i think Messier_67 was being sarcastic, saying how someone called "Cheddar Man" should have cheddar colored skin.

That sculpture looks yummy btw
 
I know exactly what Messier is about, and if I need your assistance in moderating, I'll let you know.
 
WHGs being darker doesn't bother me, it might even explain me not being the whitest-looking white person, but the way I've seen this used so far does (i.e. a black woman on the news saying how nice it was that "black" people were in Britain before "English" were). Darker skin doesn't = black African, but that's the way it's being treated.
 
^^Believe me, I get it. Most people are completely ignorant when it comes to ancient dna, or modern dna, for that matter, and that includes reporters.

The researchers should try to be more clear in explaining their findings, pointing out, for example, that this is strictly about skin color, and not at all about "ethnic" identification. The WHG don't plot anywhere near Sub-Saharan Africans, and so there is no closer autosomal relationship between WHG and Africans than there is between the lighter Anatolian Neolithic people and the SSA.
 
Angela said:
^^Believe me, I get it. Most people are completely ignorant when it comes to ancient dna, or modern dna, for that matter, and that includes reporters.

The researchers should try to be more clear in explaining their findings, pointing out, for example, that this is strictly about skin color, and not at all about "ethnic" identification. The WHG don't plot anywhere near Sub-Saharan Africans, and so there is no closer autosomal relationship between WHG and Africans than there is between the lighter Anatolian Neolithic people and the SSA.
Click to expand...

if they are unable to explain this, they'd better not made and presented the reconstruction on TV because it augments the ignorance and misunderstanding, the opposit of what a reconstruction is meant to do

but that is not the aim of the TV makers, it is to attract viewers, and the title is only about the skin colour
 
bicicleur said:
if they are unable to explain this, they'd better not made and presented the reconstruction on TV because it augments the ignorance and misunderstanding, the opposit of what a reconstruction is meant to do
but that is not the aim of the TV makers, it is to attract viewers, and the title is only about the skin colour
Click to expand...
If you saw the video about the presentation it was like the Top Gear of the Archaeology, pretty funny.
 
I would like to laugh but it is representative of the times we live in today. Seems like a typical report with an ulterior motive to take the identity of Caucasians away and replace it with some pseudo scientific logic by trying to make British ancestry "black". Imagine the racist labelling that heading would get if it had the word " white" in the heading. 10,000 years ago isn't modern either, most British ancestry dates from very recent Invasions of Celtic and Germanic tribes from the Steppes. Also skin tone can change dramatically with sun exposure can you get that accurate of a skin type through bone? And if you can then aren't those the types of reports that this day and age are trying to avoid, with classification of completely different skin types! Haha I change my mind I'm laughing now, what a joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 120009 times.

Back
Top