DNA results in for first modern Britons

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

The entire article is misleading from the title itself onward;

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

In what sense does that population group represent modern Britons?

They are far more likely to relate to Caucasoid North African/Iberian populations at the South Western margins of Europe that first re-expanded following the last ice age, but a lot has happened since then including the arrival of Celtic and Germanic peoples which are not descended from the earlier group so they cannot be talked of as an ancestral population of modern Britons.

a reply to: Ashishin_no1

Agreed. 10,000 years ago sounds very misleading when people have been in that region for 150,000 to 200,000 years.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: Sigrun
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

“It really shows up that these imaginary racial categories that we have are really very modern constructions,” said Tom Booth, an archaeologist at the Natural History Museum who worked on the project.

Yoan Diekmann, a computational biologist at University College London and another member of the project’s team, agreed with Booth and called into question the link between Britishness and whiteness. >that people who feel British should have white skin, through time is not at all something that is an immutable truth,”

“The historical perspective that you get just tells you that things change, things are in flux, and what may seem as a cemented truth that people who feel British should have white skin, through time is not at all something that is an immutable truth.

>“It has always changed and will change.

But the roughly 12,000 humans in Britain at the time of Cheddar Ma thrived and their DNA now comprises roughly 10 per cent of the genetic make-up of most white people currently living in the UK.

We probably also share 10 per cent of our genetic makeup with Clown Fish, in the case of those responsible for this disinformation and those endorsing it probably more.

I'm sorry - 'disinformation'?? So you're saying that the DNA evidence is wrong are you?

To be fair, how accurate is carbon dating anyways? How do we truly know that something is a million years old if we can't go back a million years to test the theory?

I read the other day that when they were carbon dating a circle of Vikings, they couldn't determine whether their dating was accurate or not because seafood does something in your bones that would make carbon dating inaccurate. It causes a false reading.

originally posted by: Thirty6BelowZero
a reply to: Ashishin_no1

Agreed. 10,000 years ago sounds very misleading when people have been in that region for 150,000 to 200,000 years.

No, they have not. Brief visitors, yes, Permanent settlers, no. They couldn't because of the ice sheets and general weather that made Britain uninhabitable until roughly 14,000 years ago. After that then human settlers stayed - and thrived.

a reply to: SprocketUK

I can understand that, I really can.

Like I said... I wish we were living in an age already, where the baggage was already unpacked, and those unprepared to do the laundry banished.

However, I think its fair to say that while the Guardian is, as are all sources of news, corporate controlled and therefore not to be trusted, the implications of the discovery are something we cannot really ignore... the fact that people will try to ignore those implications for political reasons, or because they make them uncomfortable, is not something that publications should shy away from, and they should not shy away from making people who are uncomfortable with the facts, feel uncomfortable.

People who are not accepting of the reality that the rest of us have been living in our whole lives, are not to be coddled, or left alone for fear they might bite at us or strike at us in frustration. They are to be crushed under the weight of reality, until there are no more of them, until facts in such volume weigh upon them so heavily, that they either learn to live happily with the reality before them, or edit themselves out of reality by their own hand, such is the variance between what they believed to be the case, and what actually is.

I care not which it is, but until there ARE no people in doubt as to the unity of origin of this species, there will be no reason to remain either quiet, or bashful about that unity of origin.

a reply to: Revolution9

You are wrong that any of the people who were here hundreds of thousands of years ago, are necessarily part of our ancestry as Britons, and wrong in doubting that this discovery says more about our origins than does any discovery predating the previously mentioned ice ages, which drove those living here to either die, or move.

And as for the rest of what you said, its off topic as all hell.

I would not have to point that out, normally speaking, because normally speaking, people would not be dropping off topic comments in a thread of this nature, but this is rather an example of the problem with your approach to matters, generally speaking.

Thats two errors, in just this thread!

a reply to: Thirty6BelowZero

Modern radiocarbon dating methods can push accuracy so far, that they can get within one hundred years of the actual dates involved. In terms of geology and indeed cultural anthropology of the prehistoric variety, that is a bullseye.

a reply to: Revolution9

, guys, what you got to say to the fact that before the Brit guy there were people in the arctic where there is little sunlight a lot of the year. Were they black? Does it follow that pigment relates to Sun? They were up in the arctic 5000 years may be before Cheddar Man. 

Eskimos developed dark skins because of vitamin D

Increased melanin made their skin become darker. ... Those who went north found their dark skin worked against them–preventing them from absorbing enough sunlight to create vitamin D. To adapt, these humans started producing less melanin. But Inuits vitamin D intake wasn't dependent upon the sun

scienceline.org...
.

The dark Brits were just getting around to evolved lite skins.

Blue Eyes and dark skin?

Sounds like the They found Thulsa Doom the Stygian.

I know people who are into this kind of stuff about migrations. Most modern British people are anglosaxons. Their ancestors were not there back that long ago. Some of the Scotts, some Irish, some Old English, and some Dark Finns and Dark Italians fit into this genetics. Also the old French and Old German, and some Norwegian people also would be related. The Anglo Saxons apparantly moved there after a natural disaster, probably a comet or big asteroid, caused a lot of destruction in England. Supposedly this happened around six hundred AD or so, possibly earlier, the records of this were mostly destroyed by the people who overthrew the countries around the world, the first thing these people did was to destroy all records of previous religions and history and substitute their own propaganda. That is not a new concept, it goes back three thousand years or more.

There do remain some records. They are limited though.

Before the Old English, who lived with some of the Picts, the Picts were the dominant people in England. The Picts were different than the Old English, I have not seen where they originated from, I was tying in information of the old English and Dark Finn genetics because my grandfather was a Dark Finn. I am whiter than he was, I guess I am a laplander blend. Seems like this group of people is scattered among different cultures around Europe. I may possibly be more related to this guy than most modern Britts, the red hair people are the line of Odin, that might be a different line. We all originate from a combination of hominoids, some of us have neanderthal genes, some have other Hominid genes. We are mostly one specific hominoid, referred to as modern humans.

So this guy is not related to the majority of Brits by what I have read. Their ancestors were not there at the time, although, who knows, before the ice age, maybe the anglo Saxons did live there, there is not much information of who was there then. I am sure Humans of some sort were there before the ice age, we just have not found evidence
of it yet, that may be hard to find, glaciers kind of mess things up.

I wonder how many of the Old English still live in England. I think some of the Cornish people fit into this group too.

originally posted by: Butterfinger
Blue Eyes and dark skin?

Sounds like the They found Thulsa Doom the Stygian.

Actually there are Black or dark skinned Africans with blue eyes, but it's rare and a different genetic mutation than blue eyes developed in Europe .
BTW a group of Africans have the highest incident of freckles out side of Scotland for some reason, they are referred to as Red Ibos in both Africa and Jamaica.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

It is absolutely no surprise to me.

If people arrived here from elsewhere, it stands to reason that they were not then, as we are now.

It seems to imply...sort of, that newer arrivals then, brought agriculture with them, or the knowledge of, while at the same time Cheddar Man used tools for fishing when 'he' was around. I'm not quite sure what to make of that, fishing surely would have been a big mainstay for any of the travelling groups, from near any source.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Light skin absorbs more vitamin D from sunlight, than does darker skin, and being plunged into the colder and cloudier climate of Britain was likely a systemic shock for the first arrivals, putting at risk their bone density (because of the importance of Vit D uptake with regard to processing and utilising calcium in the bones), and general health.

My theory, which is mine, is that skin pigment has a lot more to do with camouflage than it does vitamin absorption. White people blending in with the snow and ice. Black people hunting at night and trying to avoid nocturnal predators.

originally posted by: rickymouse


Before the Old English, who lived with some of the Picts, the Picts were the dominant people in England. The Picts were different than the Old English, I have not seen where they originated from, I was tying in information of the old English and Dark Finn genetics because my grandfather was a Dark Finn. I am whiter than he was, I guess I am a laplander blend. Seems like this group of people is scattered among different cultures around Europe. I may possibly be more related to this guy than most modern Britts, the red hair people are the line of Odin, that might be a different line. We all originate from a combination of hominoids, some of us have neanderthal genes, some have other Hominid genes. We are mostly one specific hominoid, referred to as modern humans.

I'm not sure about that. There isn't any archaeological evidence to suggest the Picts used to be the dominant people in England. The classic Pictish artefacts, the carved stones, the designs and iconography, the pottery, don't exist in England at all really.

Wherever the Picts came from, it was more likely an insular Scottish tribe who aggregated into a kingdom.

The peoples of England, the pre-Roman Iron Age peoples, were mostly assimilated into the Roman settlements. Their archaeological record is pretty well known too.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Light skin absorbs more vitamin D from sunlight, than does darker skin, and being plunged into the colder and cloudier climate of Britain was likely a systemic shock for the first arrivals, putting at risk their bone density (because of the importance of Vit D uptake with regard to processing and utilising calcium in the bones), and general health.

My theory, which is mine, is that skin pigment has a lot more to do with camouflage than it does vitamin absorption. White people blending in with the snow and ice. Black people hunting at night and trying to avoid nocturnal predators.

Why would black ppl hunt at night, if so then they should have cat's or owl like eyes and be more prone to color blindness, if not, they are much more likely to be midnight snacks for the truly nocturnal.

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: rickymouse


Before the Old English, who lived with some of the Picts, the Picts were the dominant people in England. The Picts were different than the Old English, I have not seen where they originated from, I was tying in information of the old English and Dark Finn genetics because my grandfather was a Dark Finn. I am whiter than he was, I guess I am a laplander blend. Seems like this group of people is scattered among different cultures around Europe. I may possibly be more related to this guy than most modern Britts, the red hair people are the line of Odin, that might be a different line. We all originate from a combination of hominoids, some of us have neanderthal genes, some have other Hominid genes. We are mostly one specific hominoid, referred to as modern humans.

I'm not sure about that. There isn't any archaeological evidence to suggest the Picts used to be the dominant people in England. The classic Pictish artefacts, the carved stones, the designs and iconography, the pottery, don't exist in England at all really.

Wherever the Picts came from, it was more likely an insular Scottish tribe who aggregated into a kingdom.

The peoples of England, the pre-Roman Iron Age peoples, were mostly assimilated into the Roman settlements. Their archaeological record is pretty well known too.

Here is a little summary of the event. I know people personally that went to England to study these writings, the guy wrote a documentary on the subject.

This is not the author I know, I don't know the guy who made this video but it kind of matches what the guy I know was saying.. The guy I know used to make documentary movies for PBS and the History Channel. www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: rickymouse


Before the Old English, who lived with some of the Picts, the Picts were the dominant people in England. The Picts were different than the Old English, I have not seen where they originated from, I was tying in information of the old English and Dark Finn genetics because my grandfather was a Dark Finn. I am whiter than he was, I guess I am a laplander blend. Seems like this group of people is scattered among different cultures around Europe. I may possibly be more related to this guy than most modern Britts, the red hair people are the line of Odin, that might be a different line. We all originate from a combination of hominoids, some of us have neanderthal genes, some have other Hominid genes. We are mostly one specific hominoid, referred to as modern humans.

I'm not sure about that. There isn't any archaeological evidence to suggest the Picts used to be the dominant people in England. The classic Pictish artefacts, the carved stones, the designs and iconography, the pottery, don't exist in England at all really.

Wherever the Picts came from, it was more likely an insular Scottish tribe who aggregated into a kingdom.

The peoples of England, the pre-Roman Iron Age peoples, were mostly assimilated into the Roman settlements. Their archaeological record is pretty well known too.

Here is a little summary of the event. I know people personally that went to England to study these writings, the guy wrote a documentary on the subject.

This is not the author I know, I don't know the guy who made this video but it kind of matches what the guy I know was saying.. The guy I know used to make documentary movies for PBS and the History Channel. www.youtube.com...

Well, far be it from me. But I'm a Scottish Archaeologist who has worked on Pictish sites and studied with professors who were experts on the Picts.

We know their geographical distribution from the distinctive Brochs they built. The Pictish place names that survive into the modern era. The Pictish stones. The evidence of their language. All of which is geographically distinct to north-east Scotland. With no evidence at all in England.

Even the very earliest written reference to them, which dates to 297 AD, In a poem praising the Roman emperor Constantius Chlorus, the orator Eumenius recorded that the Britons were already accustomed to the semi-naked"'Picti, fierce warrior tribes, north of the Antonine wall, as their enemies." So that locates them firmly in Scotland too.


But hey, if you can find some evidence of Pictish artefacts or language markers in England, I'd be fascinated to hear about it.

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: Painterz

originally posted by: rickymouse


Before the Old English, who lived with some of the Picts, the Picts were the dominant people in England. The Picts were different than the Old English, I have not seen where they originated from, I was tying in information of the old English and Dark Finn genetics because my grandfather was a Dark Finn. I am whiter than he was, I guess I am a laplander blend. Seems like this group of people is scattered among different cultures around Europe. I may possibly be more related to this guy than most modern Britts, the red hair people are the line of Odin, that might be a different line. We all originate from a combination of hominoids, some of us have neanderthal genes, some have other Hominid genes. We are mostly one specific hominoid, referred to as modern humans.

I'm not sure about that. There isn't any archaeological evidence to suggest the Picts used to be the dominant people in England. The classic Pictish artefacts, the carved stones, the designs and iconography, the pottery, don't exist in England at all really.

Wherever the Picts came from, it was more likely an insular Scottish tribe who aggregated into a kingdom.

The peoples of England, the pre-Roman Iron Age peoples, were mostly assimilated into the Roman settlements. Their archaeological record is pretty well known too.

Here is a little summary of the event. I know people personally that went to England to study these writings, the guy wrote a documentary on the subject.

This is not the author I know, I don't know the guy who made this video but it kind of matches what the guy I know was saying.. The guy I know used to make documentary movies for PBS and the History Channel. www.youtube.com...

Well, far be it from me. But I'm a Scottish Archaeologist who has worked on Pictish sites and studied with professors who were experts on the Picts.

We know their geographical distribution from the distinctive Brochs they built. The Pictish place names that survive into the modern era. The Pictish stones. The evidence of their language. All of which is geographically distinct to north-east Scotland. With no evidence at all in England.

Even the very earliest written reference to them, which dates to 297 AD, In a poem praising the Roman emperor Constantius Chlorus, the orator Eumenius recorded that the Britons were already accustomed to the semi-naked"'Picti, fierce warrior tribes, north of the Antonine wall, as their enemies." So that locates them firmly in Scotland too.


But hey, if you can find some evidence of Pictish artefacts or language markers in England, I'd be fascinated to hear about it.

You are right, the information I was saying about the picts being in England is not correct, they were from Scotland area, the Old English were from England. But there were not many of them or the Picts left after that event. The vast majority of them moved to the Norway area and an Island somewhere off west of England that was destroyed by bombers ans ships of the English back around WW1-2 for practice. Do you know where that island full of bombed ruins is, supposedly it is off shore of Scotland somewhere towards Iceland I think. Lots of history gone by that Island being destroyed for target practice.

The guy I know who was there researching this stuff was researching King Arthur at the same time. They were actually able to run the family line of Arthur through records of information that they found. I don't remember all the particulars of that, but evidently King Arthur was a real person, whether the stories about him were true, he did not know, they could be made up tales. They were making a movie on the story of King Arthur, they had to do a lot of research to make the documentary.

Boy, it would be fun to do what some of the guys I know do for a living. Lee is getting pretty old but is still traveling all over getting information for books and documentaries, but he no longer has a contract with PBS anymore. I only get to see these guys for a couple of days a year at the conference, two other guys I know still do shows for the History channel.

I know some about the genetics of the old people of Europe. I read many articles about that specific group because I am related to it.

a reply to: Painterz

Great an archaeologist , hi Painterz , long ago I read couple of old volumes by a man called David Mac Ritchie called Ancient and Modern Britions , in it he made mention of native Black Britions as late as post Roman occupation , in which he spoke of a Scottish king named Niger val Dubh , who ruled over certain black division of the island, I thought it unlikely that any fossilized black population would have been recognizably black so late as 950 a.d is there any insight you can give as to the possibility or impossiblity of what he claimed over 100yrs ago.