5 ms·

DNA tests on ancient skeleton reveal First modern Britons had “dark to black” skin

27 points by Geekette 9y ago

alistproducer2 9y ago
I'm not sure which is more funny: that his name is Cheddar Man, that he looks like Jerome Jackson, or how butthurt the racists are going to be.
- throwahey 9y ago
  I'm skeptical that this discovery is anything but political. There is far too much psuedo-science recently pushing the idea of non-whites inhabiting Europe before whites. I don't understand the goal of such flaky publishings, but the anti-european sentiment is strong. I'm reminded of the viking with "arabic" jewelry.
  - prepend 9y ago
    I think it highlights how skin color is not that useful in and of itself. Wondering what color skin your genetic ancestors had is certainly curious for cosmetic purposes, but useless for making arguments over what the best skin color is for “true Europeans.”
    - Mikeb85 9y ago
      Skin tone has to do with sun absorption, and is a useful adaptation to climate. It doesn't matter much anymore due to things like vitamin D supplements, but it didn't come about for no reason...
      - prepend 9y ago
        Good point. Skin color serves biological purposes. I will refine my idea so that skin color is not useful for purposes of describing one race’s general superiority or inferiority.
        femidav 9y ago
        Race is defined by common ancestry, not skin color.
  - alistproducer2 9y ago
    > anti-european sentiment The scientists are using evidence to assert something. Maybe it's flawed but unless you're going to publish and refute it, calling it "anti-european sentiment" based on nothing makes it seem a awful lot like you're the one being political.
  - Geekette 9y ago
    The post clearly describes scientists in related fields using scientific mechanisms and tools like DNA analysis to make the discovery based on replicable results. So, I don't see this falls under pseudo-science or "flaky publishings". As it's also widely accepted that earliest humans started in Africa then migrated elsewhere, its quite logical the the first arrivals in Europe would be darkskinned and not surprising that more evidence reflecting that is found. Nothing political or "anti-European" about that. Only problem I see is some people possibly having personal issues with identity of their ancestors, which doesn't change the facts.
    - Mikeb85 9y ago
      'Widely accepted', until scientists discovered we're part Neanderthal (among other homo species), and that all homo species are actually 'human'.
      - BirdieNZ 9y ago
        What are your sources on these statements?
        Mikeb85 9y ago
        It's accepted history now that humans bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans. A quick Google search brings up many sources. This is like asking for a source that humans landed on the moon...
      - Geekette 9y ago
        Neanderthals and modern humans are thought to have descended from Homo Erectus, which also originated and migrated from Africa.
      - posterboy 9y ago
        "We" are probably not, or only to a small degree, descendants of this guy, because Britain was invaded multiple times, but "modern human" definitely implies common ancestors in "modern" paleohistory. The neanderthal genetics don't matter so much as the loss of pigmentation is thought to happen fairly quickly anyway. If this appears like pseudo science, then because little is known and assumptions have to be made. For example they can't extract a full genome. But it is a game of probabilities and statistics. In absence of harder criteria, this is likely the most probable theory, therefore it is worth to be discussed. Likewise, I am not sure how far and quickly was travel at the time or how far the ice had receded 10 kya, but its fair to assume they had fire and ships. Also the isles were connected to continental Europe at the time via doggerland. Maybe they were into timber trade or followed the big game like woolly Mammoths, which are attested 14 kya, or worse taken as slaves or otherwise driven by competing populations.
- Geekette 9y ago
  The expression on his face is the funniest for me - I wonder what he was thinking of: good times, dinner or how he was going to kick X's ass for Y infraction whenever he got a hold of him? As for racists, I guess they'll just have to get over this, lest their brains overheat and melt into fondue.
Mikeb85 9y ago
> However, Cheddar Man had “ancestral” versions of all these genes, strongly suggesting he would have had “dark to black” skin tone, but combined with blue eyes. That's a pretty big assumption to make and reeks of pseudoscience. Edit, more assumptions here: > The results pointed to a Middle Eastern origin for Cheddar Man, suggesting that his ancestors would have left Africa, moved into the Middle East and later headed west into Europe, Middle Eastern origin dating to the Neolithic, but they assume he had to have recently migrated from Africa, despite the fact that complex societies were developing in the Middle East during the time period described, and those populations were distinctly Eurasian. So multiple 'assumptions', both of which are at best a stretch, to push this agenda. If his origin is indeed Middle Eastern who's to say he's not from Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Iran or even the Caucasus? The only 'proof' of African origin is that he's Middle Eastern...
- kpil 9y ago
  It's a too good story not to be told...
- kls 9y ago
  saying the connection often drawn between Britishness and whiteness was “not an immutable truth. It has always changed and will change” Article and scientist went from science to agenda and advocacy pretty quick.
- Real_S 9y ago
  Yes, the assumptions they have made to draw their conclusions are highly suspect, especially considering that we have a limited understanding of the genetics of pigmentation. Looks like they are overstretching. My suspicion is that this individual was at least somewhat lighter-skinned than depicted in their recreation. Have you ever seen someone with blue eyes and very dark skin? They exist, but are rare. But this is just a hunch. My opinion here is not conclusive because they have not released any methods or data. Why not? From the wiki on Cheddar Man, looks like they may have had DNA contamination issues in the past: "The 1996 results were not subjected to peer review and it was suggested that the sequence was from contaminating modern DNA." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man#DNA_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man#DNA_testing Ancient DNA analyses and quantitative predictions are both very difficult, so their results should be considered suspect until actual methods and data are made available.

27 points by Geekette 9y ago

I'm not sure which is more funny: that his name is Cheddar Man, that he looks like Jerome Jackson, or how butthurt the racists are going to be.

throwahey 9y ago
I'm skeptical that this discovery is anything but political. There is far too much psuedo-science recently pushing the idea of non-whites inhabiting Europe before whites. I don't understand the goal of such flaky publishings, but the anti-european sentiment is strong. I'm reminded of the viking with "arabic" jewelry.
- prepend 9y ago
  I think it highlights how skin color is not that useful in and of itself. Wondering what color skin your genetic ancestors had is certainly curious for cosmetic purposes, but useless for making arguments over what the best skin color is for “true Europeans.”
  - Mikeb85 9y ago
    Skin tone has to do with sun absorption, and is a useful adaptation to climate. It doesn't matter much anymore due to things like vitamin D supplements, but it didn't come about for no reason...
    - prepend 9y ago
      Good point. Skin color serves biological purposes. I will refine my idea so that skin color is not useful for purposes of describing one race’s general superiority or inferiority.
      - femidav 9y ago
        Race is defined by common ancestry, not skin color.
- alistproducer2 9y ago
  > anti-european sentiment The scientists are using evidence to assert something. Maybe it's flawed but unless you're going to publish and refute it, calling it "anti-european sentiment" based on nothing makes it seem a awful lot like you're the one being political.
- Geekette 9y ago
  The post clearly describes scientists in related fields using scientific mechanisms and tools like DNA analysis to make the discovery based on replicable results. So, I don't see this falls under pseudo-science or "flaky publishings". As it's also widely accepted that earliest humans started in Africa then migrated elsewhere, its quite logical the the first arrivals in Europe would be darkskinned and not surprising that more evidence reflecting that is found. Nothing political or "anti-European" about that. Only problem I see is some people possibly having personal issues with identity of their ancestors, which doesn't change the facts.
  - Mikeb85 9y ago
    'Widely accepted', until scientists discovered we're part Neanderthal (among other homo species), and that all homo species are actually 'human'.
    - BirdieNZ 9y ago
      What are your sources on these statements?
      - Mikeb85 9y ago
        It's accepted history now that humans bred with Neanderthals and Denisovans. A quick Google search brings up many sources. This is like asking for a source that humans landed on the moon...
    - Geekette 9y ago
      Neanderthals and modern humans are thought to have descended from Homo Erectus, which also originated and migrated from Africa.
    - posterboy 9y ago
      "We" are probably not, or only to a small degree, descendants of this guy, because Britain was invaded multiple times, but "modern human" definitely implies common ancestors in "modern" paleohistory. The neanderthal genetics don't matter so much as the loss of pigmentation is thought to happen fairly quickly anyway. If this appears like pseudo science, then because little is known and assumptions have to be made. For example they can't extract a full genome. But it is a game of probabilities and statistics. In absence of harder criteria, this is likely the most probable theory, therefore it is worth to be discussed. Likewise, I am not sure how far and quickly was travel at the time or how far the ice had receded 10 kya, but its fair to assume they had fire and ships. Also the isles were connected to continental Europe at the time via doggerland. Maybe they were into timber trade or followed the big game like woolly Mammoths, which are attested 14 kya, or worse taken as slaves or otherwise driven by competing populations.
Geekette 9y ago
The expression on his face is the funniest for me - I wonder what he was thinking of: good times, dinner or how he was going to kick X's ass for Y infraction whenever he got a hold of him? As for racists, I guess they'll just have to get over this, lest their brains overheat and melt into fondue.

Mikeb85 9y ago

> However, Cheddar Man had “ancestral” versions of all these genes, strongly suggesting he would have had “dark to black” skin tone, but combined with blue eyes. That's a pretty big assumption to make and reeks of pseudoscience. Edit, more assumptions here: > The results pointed to a Middle Eastern origin for Cheddar Man, suggesting that his ancestors would have left Africa, moved into the Middle East and later headed west into Europe, Middle Eastern origin dating to the Neolithic, but they assume he had to have recently migrated from Africa, despite the fact that complex societies were developing in the Middle East during the time period described, and those populations were distinctly Eurasian. So multiple 'assumptions', both of which are at best a stretch, to push this agenda. If his origin is indeed Middle Eastern who's to say he's not from Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Iran or even the Caucasus? The only 'proof' of African origin is that he's Middle Eastern...

kpil 9y ago
It's a too good story not to be told...
kls 9y ago
saying the connection often drawn between Britishness and whiteness was “not an immutable truth. It has always changed and will change” Article and scientist went from science to agenda and advocacy pretty quick.
Real_S 9y ago
Yes, the assumptions they have made to draw their conclusions are highly suspect, especially considering that we have a limited understanding of the genetics of pigmentation. Looks like they are overstretching. My suspicion is that this individual was at least somewhat lighter-skinned than depicted in their recreation. Have you ever seen someone with blue eyes and very dark skin? They exist, but are rare. But this is just a hunch. My opinion here is not conclusive because they have not released any methods or data. Why not? From the wiki on Cheddar Man, looks like they may have had DNA contamination issues in the past: "The 1996 results were not subjected to peer review and it was suggested that the sequence was from contaminating modern DNA." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man#DNA_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man#DNA_testing Ancient DNA analyses and quantitative predictions are both very difficult, so their results should be considered suspect until actual methods and data are made available.