DNA shows first modern Briton had dark skin and blue eyes

rte.ie/news/newslens/2018/0207/938957-cheddar-man-britain/

He wasn't a modern in any way though. Modern Brits are more of a Volga-Steppe and Anatolian mix. Whatever genes they share with Cheddar is from mainland Europe.

If you read the article it says 10% of Britons are directly related to Bix Nood

But this 10% DNA wasn't exclusive to Britain. A German has the same amount as a Brit.

Ever thought he could have been a lost guy from africa, a traveler, a slave, etc...

He was extremely European genetically

Oh, are we doing this thread AGAIN?

He, like many ancient humans before agriculture, was a distant cousin of Abos. Big surprise.

>He, like many ancient humans before and after agriculture, was a distant cousin of Abos. Big surprise.

WE

>slaves in a hunter-gatherer society 11,000 years ago

K.

> le we like indigenous people le meme

Brits are animals. They hate all whites, all spaniards and the like, all other europeans.

But when it gets to their slaves from the old empire they pretend to like them.

We already have a thread about this you fuckwit

Your comment is pure nonsense unless you don't know why, when and how he's black.

He was missing two genes for totally pale white skin, doesn't mean he was as black as Denzel Washington.

He's really not black though, not in the modern sense. He's as alien to Africa as Finn, Malay or Navajo is.

yes it does

No it fucking doesn't. We had for a decade knew of a pre-Yamnaya, pre-Anatolian-farmer phenotype in that of La Braña man. As described in the same words as this Cheddar Man, he had a complexion darker than your average European and blue eyes. We know he had genes that determined lighter skin pigmentation and this mutation may have evolved in Africa itself.
The visual depiction of Cheddar Man is dishonest because
>black, leathery skin in a population known to have already received the genes for lighter pigmentation
>omission of the heavy brow-ridge known to exist in WHG populations (Neanderthal admixture)
>wide nose with big nostrils despite the individual being related to more thin nosed Scandinavian populations
All of this to make Cheddar Man look more Sub-Saharan for the purpose of political leverage.

He probably looked more like this guy than the mutt looking cheddar man.

>what are sex slaves

I'd go a few tones darker if it meant I could have blue eyes desu.

subsistence hunter-gatherer bands on post-glacier European tundra ain't got time for that shit.

Cheddar man was not a sex slave. If anything, he was a cannibal's victim.

One should also consider that the artists who make these facial reconstructions (look at the others they make; pretty cool all in all, you have to admit) want to create a splash, both for their business and name recognition. What better way than a very dark-skinned face?

In my hometown newspaper, the SJW "identity issues" (real title) columnist, who is an upper-caste (as she wrote) Indian woman, wrote an article so gleeful she could barely contain herself all about how what a powerful symbol against Brexit, nativist attitudes, etc. this is. That it proves white skin isn't native to Britain, black is, and that white skin is a foreign middle eastern feature, etc. Take that, Nigel Farage and white men everywhere! Forget the fact these "middle easterners" don't exist in the middle east anymore, and Britain was a concept over 10,000 year away. Nothing about the fact his head was bashed in and he was probably in the cave to be carved up for dinner. Of course, it's literally ragingly obvious she knows jack shit about prehistoric humans or evolutionary biology. But that's what normies are getting out of this.

This will hopefully shut up all the bigoted racists who say that people of colour have no place in Britain.

Same
Tfw me mum is a wee darker than me but has blue eyes which i didn't get

we wasth teadrinkers and shite!
myes!

Facial features make it look likes he's from somewhere in Asia, I bet they just gave him darkest skin color that fas possible to virtue signal.

For archaic humans, thinking in modern phenotypes is a fool's errand.

Based on timelines, it's pretty certain that his lineage developed out of Africa (some migration back to Africa explains the haplo-subgroup in Northern Africa or the Horn of Africa -- probably by Arabs).

His lineage is "common" (it's a majority/above 50% absolutely nowhere) among many European groups. Finns, Baltics, other Finno-Ugric in what is today Russia, Tatars and related siberian Turkics, Bretons, Sardinians, people of the Caucasus (Chechens, Avars). It less common and becomes even less common spreading from the Middle East (Berbers to 'peninsular' Arabs) to the -Stans and as far as Mongolia. There is an outlier presence even in West Africa and remote Siberian nomads.

The haplogroup is most likely indigenous European. It's likely that his contemporaneous "cousins" in Asia looked similar. His skin here may be darker than it really was, we will never really know. But that pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer groups in Europe had dark skin is not news.

Negritos were once very common in SEAsia, India still distinguishes its adivasi (pre-IE, and pre-Dravidian) groups. Melanesians, Andaman Islanders and Abos are more clear representations the first waves of humans to settle these areas.

What the hell are you talking about?

>hurrr Cheddar Man face is all SJW virtue signalling durrr

ancient DNA doesn't give a fuck about your modern politics.

They don't know how dark his skin was, not to mention that they use virtue signaling tone. So yeah, it's political.

No I actually have no idea what the actual fuck you're trying to convey with your rambling about Tatars and Borneo islanders. Safe to say it's nothing substantial.

Weren't Western hunter-gatherers mixed with Neanderthal? I find it hard to believe he was THIS dark, and that there isn't a political motivation behind this facial reconstruction

The gene of light skin from neanderthals have nothing to do with european's light skin.

>this dark
>political
Of course you don't want to believe it due to political beliefs.

Making 10^10 threads won't change the fact that Cheddar man was DARK.

>as described
When you have actual genetic information instead of "phenotype" circlejerk, then you can claim what you want, boy.

Cheddar man was DARK.

The way it's being used is what leads me to believe it's political, fuckhead. Where then did European light skin come from? I'm not being condescending I'm genuinely curious as to where it came from if the claim is that WHG were this dark. I always had imagined they were the same tone as Arabs or Southeast Asians

Do blacks like to use boy because it was what we called you during slavery times as soms sort of retribution? How about you start picking cotton before I whip your ass boy.

But we have genetic information, boyo. We can identify genes related to melanin production. You know, those responsible for skin pigmentation. La Braña Man was identified to have mutations responsible for lighter skin twice before leaving Africa. I'm not doubting that WHG populations would have dark skin. I am doubting that they would have chocolate-tier, leathery skin like modern SSAs. There is a wide spectrum of skin tones between modern SSAs (which are the results of mutations for more melanin production) and white Europeans.
And this is noticably political. Consider as I suggested before that WHG would likely have a thinner nose, a thick straight-haired beard and a heavy Neanderthal brow, unlikely traits to find in African populations, then take another look at the Cheddar Man depiction.

If you're too stupid or uninformed on background to understand, that's your problem.

Have you tried Nickelodeon? Maybe there's something there on your level for you.

The first humans out of Africa were dark. That's a pretty logical conclusion, and evidence from finds seems to support it. Much like Africans today, and (hurr durr) chimps and gorillas, etc. It should be fairly obvious that dark skin was common among very early humans. The fact that Abos, Andaman islanders and Negritos are dark skinned and yet not African is a major clue. They are basically the oldest extent non-African groups on the planet.

Lighter skin was a later development among the "Middle Eastern" farmer types. Whether it truly provided an evolutionary edge (Vitamin D, etc), or was simply sexually selected over the eons is still anyone's guess. I tend to take the sexual selection version, similar to blue eyes. You are Uggbukruklgug of the Lion Cave tribe, and you have just brought back a few hundred pounds of wooly rhino meat, plus its gnarly ass horn. Bitches be lined up, and it is time to FUCK. Are you going to focus on boring old Krullina with dark brown features everywhere, or Ungrugla who has light brown hair, blonde pubes and blue eyes? Which just looks cooler?

I think there is an argument to be made that light eyes and light skin perhaps provided some advantages. Humans communicate a lot with non-visual cues and it's possible light eyes (on white sclera, rare for primates) made this more pronounced. I don't think it's any adaptive revolution though.

The argument that this is real srs bizniss for modern politics is irrelevant and only something leftist normies care about. They reject biology anyway, except when it's convenient to score points on twitter. Like now. But even then, it's not really about biology, it's about "GOTCHA, he a black face". If anyone is going to chimp about race wars either way, then personally I'm done.

>firsr modern Briton
Fake news. Modern Britons are the descendants of ancient people from Iberia and modern day Holland who came in far later than this cheddar man relic. It's factually incorrect and extremely dishonest to suggest cheddar man has anything to do with modern Britons.
>dark skin
Darker than that of modern euros, anything more is conjecture. The reconstruction should be viewed as nothing more than possibly politically-motivated art and has discrepancies compared to other reconstructions from ancient people with similar DNA.

So no, Britain or any other parts of Europe wuz not black n shieet, get over it kangz and self-haters.

Fake bullcrap forged to fool people. No way where British once black.

I think "Briton" is being used in a very loose sense of geography only. That's how I took it because I would never consider a person who lived over 10000 years ago having much to do with modern identities. Male. Human. That's it. Normies gonna normie, I guess.

Of course, whether the presence of his same haplogroup among modern Englishmen is directly from his lineage or more generally from its background presence is nearly impossible to say.

No one's saying they were.

>modern Briton
>10000 BP

kys

Can someone who knows a little about this confirm that his DNA shows he was dark skinned and they're not just saying something like "well he COULD have been dark skinned"?
10k years seems a very short time for a population to change color like that.

...

They didn't change color. They were replaced and not only once but twice.

why are they trying so hard to justify the current demographic shift?

We're all descended from apes. Take that racists!

Here's a comprehensive answer.

We can't say he was dark-skinned and *how* dark-skinned he was for sure, considering we haven't fully mapped the architecture of skin color.

What we know is that he had (assuming he's your typical WHG) the ancestral variants for the two major alleles associated with light skin in modern Western Eurasia. One of the two is pretty pan Western Eurasian while the second is much more prevalent in all of Europe than the rest of Eurasia.

Maybe the researchers also found him to have the ancestral variants for other known skin pigmentation alleles as well which wouldn't necessarily be surprising.

Many of the Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic specimens in Europe were pretty dark overall based on those known alleles. Of course it's always possible that these populations whose ancestry in any modern population doesn't exceed ~20% at best*** had derived variants of other skin lightening alleles and as such were also light but in a very different way compared to Western Eurasians, like modern East Eurasians are.

*** As wrote you had two major population turnovers in the UK. One during the Neolithic (Sardinian-like populations) and one during the Chalcolithic (modern Northwest European-like populations). It's possible that even this 10% wasn't fully native Mesolithic ancestry but much of it, continental. There has been more geneflow since then as everywhere else but it has been minor and/or by much more similar populations.

It's not, really. Especially with the right pressures.

Again, dark-skinned early archaic humans in Europe are not new.

This. IIRC, they were outbred and outcompeted. It seems they (the darkies) lived more or less side by side for a few thousand years. There was clearly some mixing, but imagine Abos. They continue to dance around a stick cuz culture, while a whole civilization is going on around them.

Well, outcompeted seems to be a bit reductionist too. It's clear that farming and later a more mobile sort of mixed pastoralism were the way forward in Europe but in much of Europe, Mesolithic Y-DNA haplogroups seem to be common even in populations of overwhelming Neolithic ancestry (say 80% Neolithic, 20% Mesolithic). Which shows that for whatever reason, the male Mesolithic lineages were decently successful despite the Mesolithic population contributing a minority of the overall ancestry.

or as suspected to be the case from the overwhelming balance of available evidence.

a european man from before white skin evolved in his descendants, white skin being a fairly recent evolution and the man in question having lived 11000 years ago

>omission of the heavy brow-ridge known to exist in WHG populations
>wide nose with big nostrils despite the individual being related to more thin nosed Scandinavian populations

they have the fucking skull, they literally did the same forensic facial reconstruction shit as they would on any old skull and used the genetic samples to estimate pigmentation

>manual labor in the sun all day
>little if any shelter
No way this guy was fair skinned even if he had the genes that allowed it.

They had clothes, including woven materials (although sewn-together pelts were a lot more common), and it was cooler and (probably) cloudier back then. Do you know how well Brits are known for their sun-kissed bronze bodies?

So does this finally prove what we all have known? That white people are evolved from niggers?

You are right it doesn't and it proves once and for all niggers a less evolved than the rest of us.

Evolution is not a ladder. You're making the rookie mistake that there is one magical final pokemon we'll all achieve and we're heading towards that. That's now how it works. Everything on Earth, from a deep-sea vent bacteria to jellyfish to a snail to a lizard to a panda bear to you is equally evolved. Otherwise they'd be extinct.

equally evolved, but differently adapted
aka niggers are more adapted to jungles and eating grubs than anything resembling civilization

WAS

if cheddar man was black and nefertiti wasn't black, and light skin evolved in europe, does that mean ancient egypt was a european colony?

Which will come handy after civilization collapse. They play a long game.

>manual labor all day
>hunter gatherer society

found the brainlet

Fair enough. In this sense, I mean it as a guy with black skin.

>and light skin evolved in Europe
It didn't, it evolved in Russia.

No, it evolved in Anatolia

Russia is mostly in Europe

Nope. Oldest evidence we have the allele is from some CHG's (caucasus hunter-gatherer) remains from some cave in southern Georgia. However, the first farmers who entered through Anatolia had the alleles as well.

Maori had slaves. So did guarani and other native americans

Irrelevant when we don't have contemporary DNA from Russia/Kazakhstan. That's the key area.

But we know for a fact that CHG DNA make up a around half of Yamnaya DNA, and that they made contributions to both central and south Asia.

Britons are still black

FROM THE PEOPLE WHO BROUGHT YOU THE "SCIENCE" OF GLOBAL WARMING.