Most ancient Europeans had dark skin, eyes and hair up until 3,000 years ago, new research finds

[Moja]

Most ancient Europeans had dark skin, eyes and hair up until 3,000 years ago, new research finds

A new study charts the genetics of skin, hair and eye color in Europe over 45,000 years.

www.livescience.com

New research finds that ancient Europeans tended to have dark skin, dark hair and dark eyes up until the Iron Age. The bones of Cheddar Man (whose reconstruction is pictured here) reveal he lived in the U.K. around 10,000 years ago. This reconstruction shows his probable dark skin.

 

[Moja]

Arrival of Iranian-related ancestry:

 

[MOESAN]

What do you believe you're showing here?
First of all, Cheddy and supposed first IE's dark skin colour doesn't establish any recent common origin between them so I don't understand why Cheddy is mentioned here -
In THE study where you found the above pictures, the relatively strong input in Central Italy seems rather late and the first input - verylight - only at IA - Could you develop your thoughts?

 

[—BoNe—]

Summary of the conclusion:

Up until 1000 BC, we were all black in Europe, and then the “Indo-Europeans” from haplogroups J1, J2, R1a, T, and G2, who came from Iran, whitened all of Europe and civilized it through the Roman Empire, which everyone knows was founded by an Iranian???


It doesn’t seem like you understand the phylogeny of the studies you read.

 

[Granzon]

For any new forum users that will happen to come across this thread either now or in the future, please note that the OP is some Iranian with a posting history in which he clearly has some sort of inferiority complex against Europeans/White people and has a history of trying to "We Wuz" European/White by trying to interlope himself/Iranians into anything involving Europe/Europeans. Just to unmask the purpose of this thread.

Thus far, it is generally well known that humanity outside of sub-Sahara Africa had slightly darker complexions than they do today. It is suspected that over time, for environmental/sexual evolutionary selective reasons, lighter complexions came to be preferred.

It is curious as to why he is posting a depiction of Cheddar Man, which has already been debunked as being depicted in a manner for anti-White political reasons. The depiction has also been rejected by researchers associated with the study related to Cheddar Man themselves where they state that they don't actually have an accurate method for predicting pigmentation. The individual below sheds some light on the political purpose of Cheddar Man's depiction.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

More videos regarding Cheddar Man and Mesolithic Europe for anyone interested.

I'm not sure what OP is trying to imply with the second post? Romans are not Iranians and I believe that the Iran_Neolithic ancestry is related to a flow of Anatolian/Levantine labor/slaves into Rome after being conquered by the Romans. This flow of labor/salves also were brought to the Balkans. Before the Imperial era, if I recall correctly, it was related to Greek Islander like populations (whom already settled in Southern Italy a very long time ago) migrating into Rome for labor/being absorbed into Italic/Roman society.

Perhaps it's just another day for him to vomit his We Wuz Romans saar rotuine.

 

[Power]

bullshit

 

[Moja]

What do you believe you're showing here?
First of all, Cheddy and supposed first IE's dark skin colour doesn't establish any recent common origin between them so I don't understand why Cheddy is mentioned here -
In THE study where you found the above pictures, the relatively strong input in Central Italy seems rather late and the first input - verylight - only at IA - Could you develop your thoughts?

First IE's?!! There is absolutely no evidence which shows IE people lived in Europe somewhere other than Greece 3,000 years ago.

 

[MOESAN]

What do you believe you're showing here?
First of all, Cheddy and supposed first IE's dark skin colour doesn't establish any recent common origin between them so I don't understand why Cheddy is mentioned here -
In THE study where you found the above pictures, the relatively strong input in Central Italy seems rather late and the first input - verylight - only at IA - Could you develop your thoughts?

First IE's?!! There is absolutely no evidence which shows IE people lived in Europe somewhere other than Greece 3,000 years ago.

View attachment 18259

I don't know what these maps are based on. Surely very few and little things - so, western CWC were Tyrrhenian speaking? And what about topology? IE reached <eastern Europe only at IA? With so little changes in Y-haplo's and auDNA???
I like all these maps so often proposed as Bible words when they are based on almost nothing.
That said, the colours are very attractive!

 

[Moja]

What do you believe you're showing here?
First of all, Cheddy and supposed first IE's dark skin colour doesn't establish any recent common origin between them so I don't understand why Cheddy is mentioned here -
In THE study where you found the above pictures, the relatively strong input in Central Italy seems rather late and the first input - verylight - only at IA - Could you develop your thoughts?

I don't know what these maps are based on. Surely very few and little things - so, western CWC were Tyrrhenian speaking? And what about topology? IE reached <eastern Europe only at IA? With so little changes in Y-haplo's and auDNA???
I like all these maps so often proposed as Bible words when they are based on almost nothing.
That said, the colours are very attractive!

This what we know about a Tyrrhenian speaking people: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

"C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers."

So Etruscans had Steppe-related ancestry and IE Italians had Iranian-related ancestry.

 

[MOESAN]

What do you believe you're showing here?
First of all, Cheddy and supposed first IE's dark skin colour doesn't establish any recent common origin between them so I don't understand why Cheddy is mentioned here -
In THE study where you found the above pictures, the relatively strong input in Central Italy seems rather late and the first input - verylight - only at IA - Could you develop your thoughts?

First IE's?!! There is absolutely no evidence which shows IE people lived in Europe somewhere other than Greece 3,000 years ago.

View attachment 18259

I don't know what these maps are based on. Surely very few and little things - so, western CWC were Tyrrhenian speaking? And what about topology? IE reached <eastern Europe only at IA? With so little changes in Y-haplo's and auDNA???
I like all these maps so often proposed as Bible words when they are based on almost nothing.
That said, the colours are very attractive!

This what we know about a Tyrrhenian speaking people: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

"C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers."

So Etruscans had Steppe-related ancestry and IE Italians had Iranian-related ancestry.

From the well kown above paper mentioned by yourself:
[... Ancient genomes from Italy are very limited, with only sparse data available from the Neolithic to the Roman Republic period across the entire Italian mainland (fig. S1) (14–18). Individuals from the ancient city of Rome and its surroundings during the Iron Age and Roman Republic (900 to 27 BCE) harbored the predominant genomic components that characterize most Europeans from the Bronze Age onward (15, 17, 19, 20). In addition, three individuals were found to carry recent genetic influences from Africa and the Near East, a further demonstration of Rome’s wide connections across the Mediterranean as far back as the Iron Age. Unexpectedly, almost all individuals from the later, Imperial period in the vicinity of the Empire’s capital carried large proportions of eastern Mediterranean ancestry, which was later reduced during the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods (17). However, the extent to which these changes are representative of the processes that occurred across the rest of the Italian peninsula remains to be clarified from individuals outside the megacity of Rome and its ancient metropolitan area...]
I think you have a personal way to read papers?
I remains still this curious connexions between early IA Romans and Etruscans of the same time. More than an explanation could be theorized... Besides, eastern mediterranea connexions at MIA aren't equivalent to early IE's input (someones supposed geographically Iranians)

 

[WHGuy]

What do you believe you're showing here?
First of all, Cheddy and supposed first IE's dark skin colour doesn't establish any recent common origin between them so I don't understand why Cheddy is mentioned here -
In THE study where you found the above pictures, the relatively strong input in Central Italy seems rather late and the first input - verylight - only at IA - Could you develop your thoughts?

I don't know what these maps are based on. Surely very few and little things - so, western CWC were Tyrrhenian speaking? And what about topology? IE reached <eastern Europe only at IA? With so little changes in Y-haplo's and auDNA???
I like all these maps so often proposed as Bible words when they are based on almost nothing.
That said, the colours are very attractive!

From the well kown above paper mentioned by yourself:
[... Ancient genomes from Italy are very limited, with only sparse data available from the Neolithic to the Roman Republic period across the entire Italian mainland (fig. S1) (14–18). Individuals from the ancient city of Rome and its surroundings during the Iron Age and Roman Republic (900 to 27 BCE) harbored the predominant genomic components that characterize most Europeans from the Bronze Age onward (15, 17, 19, 20). In addition, three individuals were found to carry recent genetic influences from Africa and the Near East, a further demonstration of Rome’s wide connections across the Mediterranean as far back as the Iron Age. Unexpectedly, almost all individuals from the later, Imperial period in the vicinity of the Empire’s capital carried large proportions of eastern Mediterranean ancestry, which was later reduced during the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods (17). However, the extent to which these changes are representative of the processes that occurred across the rest of the Italian peninsula remains to be clarified from individuals outside the megacity of Rome and its ancient metropolitan area...]
I think you have a personal way to read papers?
I remains still this curious connexions between early IA Romans and Etruscans of the same time. More than an explanation could be theorized... Besides, eastern mediterranea connexions at MIA aren't equivalent to early IE's input (someones supposed geographically Iranians)

This obviously tells the reader that, during the Roman Empire, there was an influx of people from the eastern part of the empire to the area around Rome. This movement of people is fairly well known, perhaps most famously represented by the long term presence of a Jewish community Rome up until the present day.

Levantines had Iranian Neolithic admixture, this is well-known, so the fact that Levantines brought this to Rome should not be a surprise to anyone.

Anyone trying to argue that the Romans themselves were an Iranian offshoot however is clearly not reading the data properly or possibly has an agenda.

 

[Moja]

This obviously tells the reader that, during the Roman Empire, there was an influx of people from the eastern part of the empire to the area around Rome. This movement of people is fairly well known, perhaps most famously represented by the long term presence of a Jewish community Rome up until the present day.

Levantines had Iranian Neolithic admixture, this is well-known, so the fact that Levantines brought this to Rome should not be a surprise to anyone.

Anyone trying to argue that the Romans themselves were an Iranian offshoot however is clearly not reading the data properly or possibly has an agenda.

Don't fool yourselves, these Levantines had no Levantine-related ancestry but just Iranian-related ancestry?!! Ancient Iranians and Iranian-speaking peoples are two very different things, there were different peoples in Iran before adoption of Persian language during Achaemenid to Sassanid era, most of them had non-Iranian Indo-European names, such as Gutian (Goth), Hidali/Idali (Italian), Gaeli (Gael), Mukani (Mycenaean), Semnani (Germanic Semnones, Italian Samnites, Celtic Senones, ...), ...

 

[WHGuy]

Don't fool yourselves, these Levantines had no Levantine-related ancestry but just Iranian-related ancestry?!! Ancient Iranians and Iranian-speaking peoples are two very different things, there were different peoples in Iran before adoption of Persian language during Achaemenid to Sassanid era, most of them had non-Iranian Indo-European names, such as Gutian (Goth), Hidali/Idali (Italian), Gaeli (Gael), Mukani (Mycenaean), Semnani (Germanic Semnones, Italian Samnites, Celtic Senones, ...), ...

I think it is pretty well-established that the introduction of PIE languages and cultures to Europe begins with the Yamnaya expansion about 5,500 years ago, and that the source population for this was the area north and east of the Black Sea.

PIE groups expanded throughout the Middle East, Iran, and India around this time as well, maybe a little bit before. The Levantines obviously had Levantine related ancestry as there is overlap between ANF and PPNB and Natufian peoples. The next genetic introgression into the Levantine population coincides with the introduction of Iranian Neolithic ancestry and people from the Kura Araxes (sp) populations.

 

[MOESAN]

What do you believe you're showing here?
First of all, Cheddy and supposed first IE's dark skin colour doesn't establish any recent common origin between them so I don't understand why Cheddy is mentioned here -
In THE study where you found the above pictures, the relatively strong input in Central Italy seems rather late and the first input - verylight - only at IA - Could you develop your thoughts?

First IE's?!! There is absolutely no evidence which shows IE people lived in Europe somewhere other than Greece 3,000 years ago.

View attachment 18259

I don't know what these maps are based on. Surely very few and little things - so, western CWC were Tyrrhenian speaking? And what about topology? IE reached <eastern Europe only at IA? With so little changes in Y-haplo's and auDNA???
I like all these maps so often proposed as Bible words when they are based on almost nothing.
That said, the colours are very attractive!

This what we know about a Tyrrhenian speaking people: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

"C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers."

So Etruscans had Steppe-related ancestry and IE Italians had Iranian-related ancestry.

From the well kown above paper mentioned by yourself:
[... Ancient genomes from Italy are very limited, with only sparse data available from the Neolithic to the Roman Republic period across the entire Italian mainland (fig. S1) (14–18). Individuals from the ancient city of Rome and its surroundings during the Iron Age and Roman Republic (900 to 27 BCE) harbored the predominant genomic components that characterize most Europeans from the Bronze Age onward (15, 17, 19, 20). In addition, three individuals were found to carry recent genetic influences from Africa and the Near East, a further demonstration of Rome’s wide connections across the Mediterranean as far back as the Iron Age. Unexpectedly, almost all individuals from the later, Imperial period in the vicinity of the Empire’s capital carried large proportions of eastern Mediterranean ancestry, which was later reduced during the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods (17). However, the extent to which these changes are representative of the processes that occurred across the rest of the Italian peninsula remains to be clarified from individuals outside the megacity of Rome and its ancient metropolitan area...]
I think you have a personal way to read papers?
I remains still this curious connexions between early IA Romans and Etruscans of the same time. More than an explanation could be theorized... Besides, eastern mediterranea connexions at MIA aren't equivalent to early IE's input (someones supposed geographically Iranians)

Don't fool yourselves, these Levantines had no Levantine-related ancestry but just Iranian-related ancestry?!! Ancient Iranians and Iranian-speaking peoples are two very different things, there were different peoples in Iran before adoption of Persian language during Achaemenid to Sassanid era, most of them had non-Iranian Indo-European names, such as Gutian (Goth), Hidali/Idali (Italian), Gaeli (Gael), Mukani (Mycenaean), Semnani (Germanic Semnones, Italian Samnites, Celtic Senones, ...), ...

Don't play to the "magic linguistic / etymology". Gaeli are not modern "Gaels" because this ones took their names from a name Gaidel or Goidel - and some ancient IE roots could have survived as element in names born in IE tribes separated since a long time and which we don't know which one could eventually be considered as the source.
PLus, the relatively recent 'iranian' genetic element distinct from the drifted one present in the EHG/WHG medley doesn't imply it came to Italy or elsewhere under a pure form with the label "made in Iran".

 

[MOESAN]

What do you believe you're showing here?
First of all, Cheddy and supposed first IE's dark skin colour doesn't establish any recent common origin between them so I don't understand why Cheddy is mentioned here -
In THE study where you found the above pictures, the relatively strong input in Central Italy seems rather late and the first input - verylight - only at IA - Could you develop your thoughts?

First IE's?!! There is absolutely no evidence which shows IE people lived in Europe somewhere other than Greece 3,000 years ago.

View attachment 18259

I don't know what these maps are based on. Surely very few and little things - so, western CWC were Tyrrhenian speaking? And what about topology? IE reached <eastern Europe only at IA? With so little changes in Y-haplo's and auDNA???
I like all these maps so often proposed as Bible words when they are based on almost nothing.
That said, the colours are very attractive!

This what we know about a Tyrrhenian speaking people: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

"C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers."

So Etruscans had Steppe-related ancestry and IE Italians had Iranian-related ancestry.

From the well kown above paper mentioned by yourself:
[... Ancient genomes from Italy are very limited, with only sparse data available from the Neolithic to the Roman Republic period across the entire Italian mainland (fig. S1) (14–18). Individuals from the ancient city of Rome and its surroundings during the Iron Age and Roman Republic (900 to 27 BCE) harbored the predominant genomic components that characterize most Europeans from the Bronze Age onward (15, 17, 19, 20). In addition, three individuals were found to carry recent genetic influences from Africa and the Near East, a further demonstration of Rome’s wide connections across the Mediterranean as far back as the Iron Age. Unexpectedly, almost all individuals from the later, Imperial period in the vicinity of the Empire’s capital carried large proportions of eastern Mediterranean ancestry, which was later reduced during the Late Antique and Early Medieval periods (17). However, the extent to which these changes are representative of the processes that occurred across the rest of the Italian peninsula remains to be clarified from individuals outside the megacity of Rome and its ancient metropolitan area...]
I think you have a personal way to read papers?
I remains still this curious connexions between early IA Romans and Etruscans of the same time. More than an explanation could be theorized... Besides, eastern mediterranea connexions at MIA aren't equivalent to early IE's input (someones supposed geographically Iranians)

Don't fool yourselves, these Levantines had no Levantine-related ancestry but just Iranian-related ancestry?!! Ancient Iranians and Iranian-speaking peoples are two very different things, there were different peoples in Iran before adoption of Persian language during Achaemenid to Sassanid era, most of them had non-Iranian Indo-European names, such as Gutian (Goth), Hidali/Idali (Italian), Gaeli (Gael), Mukani (Mycenaean), Semnani (Germanic Semnones, Italian Samnites, Celtic Senones, ...), ...

Don't play to the "magic linguistic / etymology". Gaeli are not modern "Gaels" because this ones took their names from a name Gaidel or Goidel - and some ancient IE roots could have survived as element in names born in IE tribes separated since a long time and which we don't know which one could eventually be considered as the source.
PLus, the relatively recent 'iranian' genetic element distinct from the drifted one present in the EHG/WHG medley doesn't imply it came to Italy or elsewhere under a pure form with the label "made in Iran".

 

[Pax Augusta]

This what we know about a Tyrrhenian speaking people: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abi7673

"C.Italy_Etruscan individuals harbor the three genetic ancestries associated with Anatolian Neolithic farmers, European hunter-gatherers, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. C.Italy_Etruscan.Ceu carries a higher proportion of “steppe-related ancestry,” while C.Italy_MAS001 shows a genetic component maximized in Iranian Neolithic farmers."

So Etruscans had Steppe-related ancestry and IE Italians had Iranian-related ancestry.

C.Italy_MAS001 might have some Iranian_related ancestry (meaning Neolithic Iran, not modern Iran) but this is where MAS001 plots in a PCA, with modern-day Romanians, Macedonians, Montenegrins. Having percentages of Iran_N does not imply being an ancient or modern Iranian.

According to G25 MAS001 does not even have Iran_N, he has a bit of Natufian, with quite high Steppe values (over 40%), and ends up close to modern South Slavic populations. So it is not clear what MAS001was, but he certainly did not come from Iran.

I remains still this curious connexions between early IA Romans and Etruscans of the same time. More than an explanation could be theorized... Besides, eastern mediterranea connexions at MIA aren't equivalent to early IE's input (someones supposed geographically Iranians)

Early IA Romans are most likely nothing more than a blend of Latins (dominant language group), Etruscans and Sabines, who likely were all quite similar genetically despite speaking three different languages. Latin and Sabine languages, although considered both Italic, are believed to belong to the two separate groups (Latino-Faliscan and Sabellian/Osco-Umbrian, also called Western and Eastern Italic). Then within the Roman world initially there may also have been groups of Faliscans, who belonged to some extent to the Etruscan world but spoke a language more akin to Latin.

Archaeologically, what is found in southern Etruria (Latium) between the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age is in many respects indistinguishable from what is found in the same period in Latium vetus.

In archaeogenetic studies, the sample labelled Roman_Republic_IA is none other than the Iron Age Latins, Etruscans and Protovillanovans from Antonio 2019.

 

[Moja]

Don't play to the "magic linguistic / etymology". Gaeli are not modern "Gaels" because this ones took their names from a name Gaidel or Goidel - and some ancient IE roots could have survived as element in names born in IE tribes separated since a long time and which we don't know which one could eventually be considered as the source.
PLus, the relatively recent 'iranian' genetic element distinct from the drifted one present in the EHG/WHG medley doesn't imply it came to Italy or elsewhere under a pure form with the label "made in Iran".

What about Galli, Gallaeci, Galatian, Gaulish and other Celtic tribes? They are not similar to Gaeli or Galeshi? Goidel is similar to Godali (Persian Godari): https://jill.shirazu.ac.ir/article_7094.html?lang=en

Hyrcania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrcania Hyrcania means "Wolf-land". Wolfland: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wolfland A nickname for Ireland.

 

[MOESAN]

What about Galli, Gallaeci, Galatian, Gaulish and other Celtic tribes? They are not similar to Gaeli or Galeshi? Goidel is similar to Godali (Persian Godari): https://jill.shirazu.ac.ir/article_7094.html?lang=en


View attachment 18273

Hyrcania: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrcania Hyrcania means "Wolf-land". Wolfland: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wolfland A nickname for Ireland.

always the same amateurish linguistic; at a same time in the same ethny Cat- and Cad- have few chances to have the same meaning, as an example. Hercynian is supposed by linguists as being a Celtic evolution (loss of P-) of an ancient *Perk- if I remember well. It's interesting to search common roots but we have to be cautious.

 

[Moja]

Let's back to the Topic: Anomalous blue-eyed people came to Israel 6,500 years ago from Iran, DNA shows

"Blue-eyed, fair-skinned settlers inhabited the Levant some 6,500 years ago, according to an international interdisciplinary team of scientists. An article released Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications solves the mystery of how Chalcolithic culture got to the Galilee: via population migration."

 

[MOESAN]

Let's back to the Topic: Anomalous blue-eyed people came to Israel 6,500 years ago from Iran, DNA shows

"Blue-eyed, fair-skinned settlers inhabited the Levant some 6,500 years ago, according to an international interdisciplinary team of scientists. An article released Monday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Communications solves the mystery of how Chalcolithic culture got to the Galilee: via population migration."

What percentage of blue-eyed fair-skinned individuals (and based only on 22 over 600)?
Does the paper say: all their ancestry is from Iran? No! 17% only. And I bet the mix which reached the Levant was not a pure Iran pop but something like W-Iran-E-Anatolian-N-Levant maybe through North-Mesopotamian...
Let's not spring to conclusions without by speedy crossreading.