It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

9000 Year Old Grandparent

page: 2
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Nice post and great story!

In response to the cannibalism possibility; It sounds plausible, but there are quite a few bizarre 'burial' rituals which many ancient and modern societies have endorsed. Many of which involved dissection of the human body, but without cannibalism.

Tibetan Sky burial came to mind when I thought of this possibility. In this burial ceremony, practiced extensively throughout Tibet (ahem, now China), involved the dissection of the body, and the disembowelment of organs, which were then scattered about on rocks at high altitudes for vultures to completely consume.

This is a Buddhist tradition, passing on the physical body straight back to other living entities, as well as a tradition of practicality, as the rocky earth in the Tibetan mountains is almost impossible to dig graves into.




posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


S&F

Awesome thread and how interesting they were able to find a descendant.

So does that mean that he can now lay claim to the area as his ancestral home . . . . Just kidding about that, but there are some who would try, well if it would have occurred in America they would.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   


Cheddar Gorge returns again to the news. This time three skulls have been analysed and appear to have been used as drinking vessels.


The braincases from three individuals were fashioned in such a meticulous way that their use as bowls to hold liquid seems the only reasonable explanation.

The 14,700-year-old objects were discovered in Gough's Cave, Somerset. Scientists from London's Natural History Museum say the skull-cups were probably used in some kind of ritual.
Ancient Britons 'drank from skulls'



As usual, Chris Springer is in the thick of it and has contributed to the paper on the findings...Earliest Directly-Dated Human Skull-Cups


Principal Findings

Here we describe the post-mortem processing of human heads at the Upper Palaeolithic site of Gough's Cave (Somerset, England) and identify a range of modifications associated with the production of skull-cups. New analyses of human remains from Gough's Cave demonstrate the skilled post-mortem manipulation of human bodies. Results of the research suggest the processing of cadavers for the consumption of body tissues (bone marrow), accompanied by meticulous shaping of cranial vaults. The distribution of cut-marks and percussion features indicates that the skulls were scrupulously 'cleaned' of any soft tissues, and subsequently modified by controlled removal of the facial region and breakage of the cranial base along a sub-horizontal plane. The vaults were also ‘retouched’, possibly to make the broken edges more regular. This manipulation suggests the shaping of skulls to produce skull-cups.


Cheddar Gorge, and specifically Gough's Cave, have seen a number of important finds. These skulls put human habitation of the area back to a possible...


New ultrafiltered radiocarbon determinations provide direct dates of about 14,700 cal BP, making these the oldest directly dated skull-cups and the only examples known from the British Isles.


More links...

www.ucl.ac.uk...

www.nhm.ac.uk...

www.heraldsun.com.au...

blogs.discovermagazine.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by ragman
 


You're not seeing the whole picture. We know Cheddar man only carries his mothers DNA and does not pass it but if cheddar man had a sister who had a daughter who had a daughter etc.....that final daughter at the end could be Targetts mother. They share a common female mother only, no paternal dna involved. Another scenario would be that Cheddars mother had a sister who passed to to her daughters all the way down etc... There are probably a bunch of men and women in the area who share that specific U5a haplogroup and they all have the same common mother they just havent been tested yet. Much of north Europe is filled with U5a and other subclades like my own U5b1d1.

Link given for U5a says




Haplogroup U5 is the most common in Western and Northern Europe. DNA tests on ancient skeletons have shown that U5 was the principal mitochondrial haplogroup of Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-gatherers in Northern Europe. Ancient DNA tests conducted in Britain, Germany and Scandinavia indicate that the frequency of U5 has progressively declined over time through the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and Middle Ages. Nowadays it remains most common in the far north of Europe, where the Mesolithic population has been least affected by subsequent migrations. For instance, 30 to 50% of the Sami people of northern Scandinavia belong to haplogroup U5b (and about 40% to haplogroup V, which is also pre-Neolithic European origin).

edit on 25-2-2012 by favouriteslave because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

one of my highschool teachers was found to be closely related to this prehistoric man. a very remarkable man, and very active in the educational system here in florida.

after he had a genetics test done to trace his family, he was contacted by an organization that wanted to do more research on him because he was one of the closest living relatives to the prehistoric man.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Just thought I'd bump this because of the new info about "Cheddar Man".


The first modern Britons, who lived about 10,000 years ago, had “dark to black” skin, a groundbreaking DNA analysis of Britain’s oldest complete skeleton has revealed.

The fossil, known as Cheddar Man, was unearthed more than a century ago in Gough’s Cave in Somerset. Intense speculation has built up around Cheddar Man’s origins and appearance because he lived shortly after the first settlers crossed from continental Europe to Britain at the end of the last ice age. People of white British ancestry alive today are descendants of this population.

It was initially assumed that Cheddar Man had pale skin and fair hair, but his DNA paints a different picture, strongly suggesting he had blue eyes, a very dark brown to black complexion and dark curly hair.

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



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Thank you all for a very interesting read.
Be nice to read of further research.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Thanks for the bump. The Cheddar Gorge man has been all over the UK TV news this week so this old thread crossed my mind. We had a family holiday down that way last year and the Gorge was beautiful as well as the actual caves. In other words, the story and the location are close to my heart.

As ever, the news has been interpreted in very different ways. Some have said he was the 'first' Briton and others have said all the early islanders were dark-skinned. The truth is he probably descended from people who'd lived their for centuries or lived in a community that had existed for many years. His skin colour was his skin colour and we can't know just yet what colour skin the other natives had. It seems intuitive to me that human skin would be more homogeneous the further we go back. More people would have had darker skin as the ripples of migration were more recent events during his life time.

It's a shame my photobucket account lapsed. Turns out it was a Lycos email so it's locked for good. Some bright, colourful threads have lost their dazzle.

Incidentally, I'll be having an ancestry test in the very near future and look forward to the results. We're all blue and green-eyed fairskins with Irish and Scots ancestry. Freckly kids. The older relatives believe we're original inhabitants, but we'll see. A lot of white people are surprised to find a 'colourful' genetic history. My favourite being a London white supremacist comedian who was sickened to discover he had North African genes from as recently as the 18th/19th century. Did he change his ways or did he dismiss science as make-believe?



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Thanks for the bump. The Cheddar Gorge man has been all over the UK TV news this week so this old thread crossed my mind. We had a family holiday down that way last year and the Gorge was beautiful as well as the actual caves. In other words, the story and the location are close to my heart.

As ever, the news has been interpreted in very different ways. Some have said he was the 'first' Briton and others have said all the early islanders were dark-skinned. The truth is he probably descended from people who'd lived their for centuries or lived in a community that had existed for many years. His skin colour was his skin colour and we can't know just yet what colour skin the other natives had. It seems intuitive to me that human skin would be more homogeneous the further we go back. More people would have had darker skin as the ripples of migration were more recent events during his life time.



Cheddar man lived before white skin evolved.



posted on Feb, 8 2018 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Thanks for the bump. The Cheddar Gorge man has been all over the UK TV news this week so this old thread crossed my mind. We had a family holiday down that way last year and the Gorge was beautiful as well as the actual caves. In other words, the story and the location are close to my heart.

As ever, the news has been interpreted in very different ways. Some have said he was the 'first' Briton and others have said all the early islanders were dark-skinned. The truth is he probably descended from people who'd lived their for centuries or lived in a community that had existed for many years. His skin colour was his skin colour and we can't know just yet what colour skin the other natives had. It seems intuitive to me that human skin would be more homogeneous the further we go back. More people would have had darker skin as the ripples of migration were more recent events during his life time.



Cheddar man lived before white skin evolved.


That's a strong assertion, Byrd. Is it possible that some groups had light skin back then? I see there were small groups with pale skins 7700 years ago in Sweden. Perhaps their ancestors went back another two or three generations.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

I think some of the coverage of this was a little over the top with the darkness, just as the recent "white" egyptian reconstruction was, both went to the extreme.
Black skin is a very specific set mutation that has its origins in fairly recent african populations, and go with a couple other environmental adaptations for heat control, showing its tropical origins.
When thinking of his skin color a dark Med. type or Syrian/Armenian type is probably closer, or native american/hispanic.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Agreed. The media went off in a number of directions that weren't quite supported by the evidence.


An upside is how it's started a conversation.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

Light skin is also a trait that arose in european neanderthal.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Actually, it seems to be the exact opposite. This much more detailed article on the subject (HERE) says it's the genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2 that are responsible for the lightened skin and the gene HERC2/OCA2 that's responsible for blue eyes. This article starts off talking about "Cheddar Man", but it then has an entire section on the lightening of skin in European history, which includes the following:


Researchers had long assumed that skin lightened as humans migrated from Africa and the Middle East into Europe around 40,000 years ago. Experts had speculated that shorter day lengths and a sun lower in the sky favoured lighter skin, which more easily synthesised vitamin D.

But a groundbreaking 2015 analysis of the genomes of 83 prehistoric Europeans showed that populations in Europe about 8,000 years ago were still mixed and diverse. Traits commonly associated with modern Europeans, such as tallness, the ability to digest milk, and lighter skin tone, only became ubiquitous in Europe relatively recently.

Experts found that about 8,500 years ago, early hunter-gatherers in central and southern Europe, including Spain, Luxembourg, and Hungary, had darker skin. They lacked versions of two genes, called SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. These genes were responsible for 'depigmentation', and hence pale skin, in Europeans today.

In the far north of Europe, where low light levels favoured pale skin, the team found hunter-gatherers had a lighter complexion. Two light-skin gene variants, SLC24A5 and SLC45A2, were found in seven people from the 7700-year-old Motala archaeological site in southern Sweden. A third gene found in the group, HERC2/OCA2, has been linked to blue eyes and may also contribute to blonde hair and light skin.

The research shows that, contrary to previous theories, Europe was still a diverse continent up to at least 8,000 years ago, showing that pale skin developed in central and southern Europe much later than first thought.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

I have to admit, these stories & areas of research fascinate me. But half of that fascination is admittedly for the wrong reason. I won't go into too much detail but I was born & raised in the Deep American South. No matter what people claim in public, "race" plays a huge part in our upbringings out here. My great great grandparents were literal slaves, my grandfather & his generation literally fought the Nazis in segregated military units, my parents grew up under forced racial segregation, one of my brothers & I have each dated a "white" woman and had their families temporarily disown them because of it, blah blah blah.

So what does that have to do with subjects like this? Vindication. I hate racism with a passion. If people don't like me because of my ideas, beliefs, or actions, then that's fine. But judging people to be superior or inferior because of pigmentation is literally one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. So I admittedly find joy in seeing racial supremacists find out their own bloodlines include the same "races" and/or racial traits that they've railed against. That goes for the ethnic and racial bigots from every demographic that I've ever come across.

I've studied different eugenics theories that said this or that "race" was inferior. I've studied different colonial policies like Apartheid, repartimiento, racial class systems, and the "Criminal Tribes" laws in India. I've looked into the religious interpretations that claimed this or that complexion was the Curse of Ham or Mark of Cain. And I've even dabbled into the other "scientific racism" branches, including the sports sciences of the late 1800s and early 1900s which claimed black athletes were inferior for sports like track & basketball (lol).

Yet the last 70 or 80 years has completely annihilated those theories. So every time I see stories like this and stories like the ones you mentioned (supremacists who find out they're actually part of the group they preached against), it makes me smile/smirk.

For the record, I'm mostly a collection of African ethnic groups, mixed with at least 2 Native American groups, and at least 1 "white" ancestor from 6 generations back on my Mom's side. In America I'm "black", but in many other countries I'm not considered "black" because I'm not "pure" African. This complexion-based stupidity also works in the opposite direction, with some xenophobic African groups seeing me as inferior because I'm "tainted" lol (though to be fair, the ones I'm talking about see most other African ethnic groups like that as well, as if they've got their own "Chosen people" thing going on). So I can't help but smile when these people find out that their beloved ancestors include the very traits they claim are inferior.

Hopefully none of this will matter in another hundred years or so. But it would be naive for anyone to think that this stuff doesn't affect people today. The entire Indian subcontinent is still ridiculously obsessed with attaining "fair" complexions (as if other complexions are "unfair"), as is a large portion of Latin America. It's crazy to me. People should just love themselves for who they are.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

You have mistaken my position, I'm not saying the western Hunter/gatherers were "white", that is clearly not the case, they were dark skinned but in no way could they be considered "black", extremely dark but not black.
Actually a good aproximation at their darkest, in a sun intensive environment, which Britain has never been, would be like a dark Indian or Native American or an Aborigine.



posted on Feb, 9 2018 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

I was responding to the part where you said this:


Black skin is a very specific set mutation that has its origins in fairly recent African populations

Then again, I guess it would help if we knew what you meant by "dark" and "black", since my original post in this thread quotes an article that literally says:

The first modern Britons, who lived about 10,000 years ago, had “dark to black” skin

Would you consider the people in the following pictures to be dark or black? I'll tell you why I'm asking this after you respond.



As a side note, it might help to know that us "dark skinned" people "tan" in heavy amounts of sunlight too. I don't mean over generations; I mean over a day or 2. I'll literally "tan" by several shades & appear almost "black" when I go to sunny but non-humid regions for a few days if I stay out in the sun. My complexion doesn't change much in sunny but humid regions though. In fact, people with more melanin have more dramatic "tanning" effects than people with less melanin, if that makes sense.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant



But judging people to be superior or inferior because of pigmentation is literally one of the stupidest things I've ever heard. So I admittedly find joy in seeing racial supremacists find out their own bloodlines include the same "races" and/or racial traits that they've railed against. That goes for the ethnic and racial bigots from every demographic that I've ever come across.


I think we're often on the same page and we are again in our respective outlooks on racism. It's a part of the human condition we can overcome. It's good to see you bringing India into the mix too because we can sometimes focus are criticisms close to home and overlook it elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's looking like we're heading for more racial bigotry and chauvinism rather than less.



For the record, I'm mostly a collection of African ethnic groups, mixed with at least 2 Native American groups, and at least 1 "white" ancestor from 6 generations back on my Mom's side. In America I'm "black", but in many other countries I'm not considered "black" because I'm not "pure" African.


I remember studying aspects of this at uni; 'high yellows' and 'mulattos' were as much a part of black American culture as they were racial pejoratives in white culture. For example, Iceberg Slim defined people along skin tone lines. I think it was Studs Terkel who wrote about 'passing' whereby some lighter-skinned women could cross over and live as whites in the Jim Crow years. They'd be looked down on by darker women who treated them as race traitors and 'half castes.'

Another way of looking at mixed heritage is its narrative value. Our histories are many-storied and colourful. If my ancestry test shows some ancient R1a lineage I'll be very pleased to know the family has lived in NW Europe for centuries. On the other hand, if we have Romany, Berber, Gaul or whatever else in there, I'll be equally pleased because it's all stories.



posted on Feb, 10 2018 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky



I think we're often on the same page and we are again in our respective outlooks on racism. It's a part of the human condition we can overcome. It's good to see you bringing India into the mix too because we can sometimes focus are criticisms close to home and overlook it elsewhere. Unfortunately, it's looking like we're heading for more racial bigotry and chauvinism rather than less.

The optimist in me believes that we're witnessing the dying moments of racism as a major issue. There will always be people who judge others strictly based on appearances, but I'm expecting it to become as irrelevant as judging people based on foot size.

That's one of the great things about globalization and the internet. People from all over the world can become exposed to virtually every other human culture on the planet. Many times it's the fear of the unknown that causes people to hate what they don't understand. So I think that with enough exposure, people will realize that people in other cultures are just as good/bad/smart/stupid/cool/lame as the people we already know, regardless of their appearances.



I remember studying aspects of this at uni; 'high yellows' and 'mulattos' were as much a part of black American culture as they were racial pejoratives in white culture. For example, Iceberg Slim defined people along skin tone lines. I think it was Studs Terkel who wrote about 'passing' whereby some lighter-skinned women could cross over and live as whites in the Jim Crow years. They'd be looked down on by darker women who treated them as race traitors and 'half castes.'

Oh man, it gets so deep lol. Anyone who tells you that African Americans can't be bigoted about complexion is a straight up liar. To this day, there are still some who mock others for being "too" dark or "too" light skinned. Though to be fair, nowadays it's usually mostly in a joking way, kind of like a light-hearted version of blondes vs brunettes.

A lot of it started with jealousy, especially when you go back to the days of slavery & then Jim Crow Segregation. The lighter skinned ones were generally given more social opportunities & seen as more desirable by non-"blacks". This obviously would fuel resentment. The lighter skinned ones generally had some "white" in them and/or some Native American in them, with many who were part-"black" being able to pass themselves off as part-Native instead. Some "black" sororities and fraternities even had the "paper bag test", meaning you couldn't join if you were darker than a paper bag. Yeah seriously.

I put "black" and "white" in parenthesis because it's important to remember that these were legal classifications, not just descriptions of complexions. With the "One Drop rule", you were designated to the "black" classification if you had a single ancestor who was previously designated as "black" (that classification had vastly fewer legal rights). But some States only designated a person as "black" if at least one grandparent was previously designated as "black". Many people tried to pass themselves as part Native or only part "black" so they could make the situation easier for their children, since they'd be one generation further removed from being "black".

Latin America had the opposite of the US's "One Drop" rule, meaning that the fewer drops of white/Latin you had in your blood, the lower your legal class. Full Africans were always assigned to the lowest class (3rd or 4th class, depending on the country), while full "white/Latins" (Latinos/Latinas) were always 1st class citizens. Some Latin American countries went even further, allowing some full blooded Natives to also be 1st class, while others only placed the European-born "whites/Latins" in the 1st class. The middle class designations typically included the mixed race people, like mestizos and mulattoes. ("Class" here refers to legal rights, not economic class.)

That's why at least 50% of Brazilians have at least 50% African blood, giving Brazil the 2nd largest population of Africans in the world for any country other than Nigeria. But most of them don't consider themselves "black" lol. But when they come to America, they're all lumped into the same category as "black" people like myself. That's also where we get the census classifications of "white non-Hispanic" and "white Hispanic" (I forget the exact wording). In their countries, they're the "white" people. But over here, it's iffy.

Ok, I'm way off topic. Sorry about that. Way too many countries and cultures have deep seated issues when it comes to pigmentation and complexion, so I'm hoping a few more "Cheddar Man" stories can come out to finally shut that crap down. I hope we'll eventually get to the point where we'll see human skin complexions the same way we see the different colors of birds, fish, or cats.



posted on Feb, 12 2018 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Great post. Always enjoy learning something new.




Ok, I'm way off topic. Sorry about that. Way too many countries and cultures have deep seated issues when it comes to pigmentation and complexion, so I'm hoping a few more "Cheddar Man" stories can come out to finally shut that crap down. I hope we'll eventually get to the point where we'll see human skin complexions the same way we see the different colors of birds, fish, or cats.


Meh. It's more like ebb and flow than 'off-topic.'


I don't know where we're heading and it sometimes makes me uncomfortable. Through the ATS lens, there's more and more racial division. People seem to want to engineer colour-coded cities and States. These fringe groups in Europe want separatism and violence in the streets to drive out migrants. All of it is amplified across social media to the point whereby a disgruntled and angry minority takes on the appearance of a vocal majority.

Your dream is similar to mine. Skin colour shouldn't be used to assign status. Unfortunately, it's embedded in all cultures and we should hope that education and exposure can reduce its effects on the human condition. I'm just thinking the older I get, the less I'm bothered by words and the more I'm concerned about sentiment and intent. A minority of ignorant racists don't have anywhere near the same effect as economic conditions favouring a chosen caste, colour or social group.


Even though I'm anxious about western humanity taking a wrong turn, I'm a long term optimist. There's a beautiful statement that was uttered by a guy called Theodore Parker and repeated by MLK, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." We're talking about someone who lived 10000 years ago and we humans have seen a lot in the meantime. The next few years might be divisive and bitter, but in the long term the human condition is improving.

Let's hope so, eh?




top topics



 
25
<< 1   >>

log in

join