DNA shows first modern Briton had dark skin, blue eyes

...

...

/pol/ on suicide watch

>Did WHG have a lot of Cro-Magnon ancestry?

This is not clear and hard to prove with currently available methods. Some samples showing asiatic components in ADMIXTURE(Lochbour, La Brana, Chan_Mesolithic and some others) can be modeled as either Goyet/El Miron admixed or Kostenki admixed but it is not clear if they were realy admixed with paleolithic survivors or some samples were just less drifted than others.

open-genomes.org/analysis/PCA/Eurogenes_Ice_Age_Eurasians_PC_plot_1-2-3.html

It's a neat fact but it really isn't that groundbreaking to anybody other than /pol/

Why is anyone surprised by this revelation? Maybe /pol/ is or something, but didn't everyone else already know that the WHG were rather swarthy with light eyes?

>what are picts

...

Not all, the Iron Gates HG who were mostly WHG had brown eyes IIRC.

These people are more similar to paleolithic europeas due to high australoid ancestry but not quite.

Were the EHG just as swarthy or did they have "light" skin like the neolithic farmers?

About the same pigmentation as farmers.

BRITS

GOD SAVE THE KANG.

Considerably lighter and some of them had light hair.
However, they had a high rate of brown eyes.
A Northern European with brown eyes would approximate an EHG appearance to some degree.

I only ask because I recall a thread on an anthropology forum that claimed yamnaya were about the same pigmentations of armenians and caucasus peoples

>that facial reconstruction
sad

we already knew about WHG, this is nothing new

Basically they were slightly darker than modern Europeans as a population.

Thanks for the info, user.

>this level of denial
sad

They always make WHGs look like some kind of faggots. They should be more rugged looking.

But they were still among the top 0.1% of all humans when it came to depigmentation.

Whoa we have a real anthropologist here. Tell us more! Do you think cheddar man might be a negroid?

We don't know east asian pigmentation as that time and mongoloid population developed their light skin allele. Prehistoric Asian DNA is still missing, We only got Tinayuan DNA and Indian government is blocking the release of study about Harappan DNA because they want censor informations about the Aryan invasion.

>Do you think cheddar man might be a negroid?

Your mother is negroid.

what the hell are you talking about? I have an image of his actual skull, WHG were caucasoid.

>really dark skin
Yeah as dark as a south European or Arab, not dark like a black African. You know, "really dark" as in "not very dark at all".

>were caucasoid.
Much purer caucasoid than modern Europeans.

Probably as dark as Dinkas.

And where's the proof?

Thready reminder that science and statistics can be manipulated and used to confirm anything, and that current political trends lead to (((certain))) kinds of things being confirmed. Also global warming is bullshit.

White people are Alien hybrids. They literally didn't exist in dem acientz times. Everyone wuz black n shiet fo real.

What does "purer caucasoid" mean? The WHG had clear ENA influence.

So does this say anything about the old Aryan Hypothesis, that Europe was originally inhabited by dark peoples who got conquered and outbred by light aryans?

modern Europeans descend from WHG, I don't really care about your obviously shitty beliefs

WHG is the least important part of Europe's ancestry, though.

Not exactly, there was one intervening population movement and those people don't seem to have been that dark. They also make up about 50% of the modern ancestry in Europe. But it has a grain of truth in it.

blue eyes

>ENA
But nowhere as much as modern Europeans and all WHG samples have it.

Not only WHG

Listen, we have DNA evidence of more than just this single HG. Almost every single individual has been dark skinned, not black but ruddy, with either light eyes or brown eyes. Shilling against scientific evidence that provides a contrarian view of your ideology is just as toxic as the SJWs who will shill that this is evidence of "muh darkies in europe"

yeah

>and all WHG samples have it.
and not all have it

There's Iranian nationalists and assorted lunatics who believe that the steppe people you call Aryans were in fact dark like Iranians but the Anatolian Neolithic Farmers were Nordics who were raped by Iranians after settling in Northern Europe.

I don't get your point. WHGs had the highest frequencies but other populations had blue eyes too. And modern Europeans have lower frequencies of blue eyes so the ancestry would be less than 100% anyway.

Sure but in that sense no population is "pure Caucasoid". You could argue Anatolian Farmers were the closest thing...

And there's evidence contrary to that. Evidence isn't proof, and most science isn't realistically accessible or understandable to the public. You're saying it's impossible for politics to decide what's accepted as true? Now that's ideology. Science isn't a god.

This is not what happened. Aryan theory is a meme, but it's true that there were some migrations/invasions from the East by Indo-Europeans. Before that there was another big migration from Anatolia that introduced agriculture to Europe.

You're talking like a deranged person. Some European populations having darker skin back then means nothing.

It's not exactly a meme, these guys ended up contributing up to 50% of the ancestry of some modern populations in Europe and Central Asia and basically all West Eurasian and North African populations have some of it due to later mixture with groups harboring it. We know there was a huge genetic turnover in northern Europe.

Okay, I don't get it. What was the haplogroup of early farmers? According to eupedia it was G2 but that's bullshit. Most pre IE populations are I1 and I2, they cluster closely with farmers but they are very rarely G. How is this possible? Did farmer girls just cuck them with WHG?

I suppose the to get to the bottom of the indo-european meme, we'd have to discover the origins of scandinavians.

It's a meme because Indo-Europeans (not Aryans) were horse-riding barbarians, not some kind of super advanced race of faggot blondes.

>You could argue Anatolian Farmers were the closest thing

No

Indo-Europeans came from Ukraine. It's pretty much established now.

Why, what does that have to do with anything? The basic ancestral components are known at this point, though even Scandinavia has seen some genetic change since the Iron Age.

Scandinavia is irrelevant to the PIE question.

...

...

>Why, what does that have to do with anything?
It would probably prove or disprove the old aryan hypothesis

>our data suggest a common founder mutation in an OCA2 inhibiting regulatory element as the cause of blue eye color in humans.
>New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

those other populations probably had blue eyes because of contact with WHG

>no population is "pure Caucasoid"
the classification is broad and spans a phenomenal length of time

Yep. But to be fair, farmers were scrawny and small. Assimilating WHG was a matter of life and death since they desperately needed some good genes.

Anybody can edit to enlarge this picture?

Explain more what you have in mind here though. If anything, ancient DNA shows that the category "Caucasoid" is basically modern and didn't exist in the same form in ancient times. Do you consider Basal to be "non-Caucasoid" for example?

Prefer to think southern Russia personally if we wanna get nitpicky.

Sure but they had advantages that helped them in the long run.

The Indigenous Europeans(WHG) were negroid similar to Bantus and Chimpanzees. Around 6000BC, White Semitic men(ENF) came into Europe and bred with Euroniggresses producing the mulattoes know as Old Europeans. Later on, Chinks(EHG/IE) came into Europe and raped the said mulattoes creating Modern-day Europeans.

In summary, Europeans are a mongrel race of Niggers, Semites, and Chinks similar to Brazilians.

Farmers brought Lactose Persistence genes but light skin genes among Europeans arose locally.

nature.com/articles/ncomms10775

There were many "old aryan hypotheses" to be honest. The steppe scenario is basically turn of the century too, if not older.

But it's clear that Germany/Scandinavia wasn't the PIE urheimat as some German scholars had hoped in the past.

Maybe pre-proto-PIE in the very distant past with post-Swiderian movements but you can't really go that far back.

>no population is "pure Caucasoid"

Some WHG samples such as Ranchot88 are close to it.

>farmers were scrawny and small

They were short but very robust. Probably more than hunter gatherers.

yea

I mean the general "aryan hypotehsis" accepted by most of the intelligentsia of the 19th century, the theory that the aryans or indo europeans wreckt the native persians and indians, mixed with them, and also outbred the natives of europe

well they don't call them Indo-Germanic anymore that's for sure.

Modern middle eastern populations look nothing like mesolithic, Early natufians were very robust and looked like paleolithic europeans with brow ridges but modern bedouins, saudis, berbers and yemeni jews look nothing like them.

Modern most basal-rich populations look like this

They bred with them. Modern Europeans are a mix of mostly EEF and steppe horse niggers.

"Rekt" is subjective but yes, they all have Indo-European ancestry. Steppe populations interacted in different and complex ways in every area though. Conquest was part of it.

Wat. The prevailing theory was that their origins were either in the caucasus or southern russia

Not in Germany.

related

Thanks. Could you do the same thing with this
By the way, do you know study is that tree from?

Especially in Germany, where many of the very first theories concerning it were propounded. You're confusing the Germany of Nietzsche and von Humboldt with nazis

No, he couldn't because they're different things. The paper you're citing already basically has a model for them, though.

This is basically an amateur version of what you're looking for.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27654912

To whom you are responding?

Yeah, I'm just wondering how true the old stereotypes are.
>the epic noble aryan
etc
I know there was reason to regard the bearers of light genes as strong and superior due to the combat prowess of anglo saxons, norsemen, etc, from Hastings to the crusades, where they often flung back far forces far superior in number

I was thinking about Kossina.

>the rate of accumulation of mutations has accelerated by about 5% in non-Africans compared to Africans since divergence
neat

just looks like a really bad tan imo

The guy I quoted.

There were plenty of (legit, non Germanicist) archaeologists after Kossina who couldn't envision a steppe migration to Northern Europe since they didn't think the evidence was there. Others thought otherwise.

Well, the latter were correct, IE isn't native to northern Europe but arrived with steppe populations as Childe, Gimbutas and the like envisioned.

They weren't. They were mostly murdering people who didn't have any weapons. They also used bows and horses.

People living before their arrival were already light skinned.

>Early natufians were very robust and looked like paleolithic europeans with brow ridges
Natufians were mainly Gracile Med, but they were indeed some robust brachy elements among them. They were most likely slaves and belonged to CT haplogroup.

fug. where can I read a general history of the various groups arriving in europe?

Not sure about a good repository for those but you could start with the recent ancient DNA studies if you're mostly interested in the genetics.

There's a shitload you could otherwise read about the Neolithization and Indo-Europeanization of Europe...read some Renfrew on the former and Mallory on the latter.

Basal is quasi-african non-caucasoid. Pretty the only true caucasoid prehistoric population we detected is WHG but most were already slightly admixed but others were/are much more admixed and older populations were not fully differentiated.

David Anthony and his book. He predicted a lot of things even before Haak and his 2015 study.

Propaganda. WHG should be literal chads when it comes to facial characteristics.

>WHG
No, Cro Magnons who predate them.

>if you're mostly interested in the genetics.
Well, I'm interested in the culture as well as the genetics. What they looked like, what sort of cultural changes they brought, how these could be connected to per medieval europe, the latins, the greeks, later the vikings etc