The involved researchers from the Cheddar Man study were part of the problem too, and not only the incompetent and click bait thirsty journalists. The scientists failed or had no real interest to explain in clear and understandable language to the public, that the Cheddar Man regardless of skin tone was through and through European with a Caucasian morphology. They didn't really pointed out that the pale Northern Europeans are his closest relatives, and not Africans at all. Instead, they gave the impression that the Cheddar Man was somehow closer to black Africans than to the native white Brits because of his skin color. And the same scientists made a political statement that at the end of the day, we are all immigrants. So, the authors themselves love to associate the Cheddar Man with Africans in spite of being in the full knowledge that the WHGs are one the most genetically distinct people from Sub- Saharan Africans. Keep in mind, that while we can trust the data we shouldn't fool ourselves by pretending that scientists/ the researchers who are usually left-leaning are free of bias and political afflictions.
Besides, I used to often debate Afrocentric loons and nutcase. Many of them claim that not DNA, genetics but skin color and phenotype determine race and that all
Melanated People (so basically anyone that isn't ghostly white or looks Nordic) as they say belong to the Black race which includes Cheddar man, Etruscans, Minoans, Romans/Greeks, etc. Plus they claim that blacks come in different shades from jet black to white as snow and that black people can produce all kinds of phenotype at any given time. Thus black people can look fully white according to them. So, some Afrocentrists, Black Hebrew Israelites say with a straight face that these
white looking Libyans on the Ancient Egyptian wall paintings are NOT Caucasian but pale or light- skinned blacks.
maybe they are classified as
Aethiopia, as a generic or ethnic designation, comprises the inhabitants of Africa who dwelt between the equator, the Red Sea, and the Atlantic, for Strabo speaks of Hesperian Aethiopians S. of the Pharusii and Mauri, and Herodotus (
4.197) describes them as occupying the whole of South Libya. The name Aethiopians is probably Semitic, and if indigenous, certainly so, since the Aethiopic language is pure Semitic. Mr. Salt says that to this day the Abyssinians call themselves
Itiopjawan. The Greek geographers however, derived the name from
αἴθω--
ὤψ, and applied it to all the sun-burnt dark-com-plexioned races above Egypt. Herodotus (
3.94,
7.70) indeed speaks of Aethiopians of Asia, whom he probably so designated from their being of a darker hue than their immediate neighbours. Like the Aethiopians of the Nile, they were tributary to Persia in the reign of Darius. They were a straight-haired race, while their Libyan namesakes were, according to the historian, woolly-haired. But the expression (
οὐλότατον τρίχωμα) must not be construed too literally, as neither the ancient Aethiopians, as depictured on the monuments, nor their modern representatives, the Bisháries and Shangallas, have, strictly speaking, the negro-hair. The Asiatic Aethiopians were an equestrian people, wearing crests and head armour made of the hide and manes of horses. From Herodotus (
l.c.) we infer that they were a Mongolic race, isolated in the steppes of Kurdistan.
So these can be any skin colour from white to black .......................in the bronze-age and early age , these Aethiopians where strictly classified as either western or eastern Libyans , pale in skin colour compared to the egyptians
many scholars/people took away the A and thought it was only ethiopians that the ancient referred to ............clearly a 100% error by these