• Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

sarahbell

You're all black originally

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42939192

A cutting-edge scientific analysis shows that a Briton from 10,000 years ago had dark skin and blue eyes.

They found the Stone Age Briton had dark hair - with a small probability that it was curlier than average - blue eyes and skin that was probably dark brown or black in tone.

Pale skin probably arrived in Britain with a migration of people from the Middle East around 6,000 years ago. This population had pale skin and brown eyes and absorbed populations like the ones Cheddar Man belonged to.

No-one's entirely sure why pale skin evolved in these farmers, but their cereal-based diet was probably deficient in Vitamin D. This would have required agriculturalists to absorb this essential nutrient from sunlight through their skin.

"There may be other factors that are causing lower skin pigmentation over time in the last 10,000 years. But that's the big explanation that most scientists turn to," said Prof Thomas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-42939192

A cutting-edge scientific analysis shows that a Briton from 10,000 years ago had dark skin and blue eyes.

They found the Stone Age Briton had dark hair - with a small probability that it was curlier than average - blue eyes and skin that was probably dark brown or black in tone.

Pale skin probably arrived in Britain with a migration of people from the Middle East around 6,000 years ago. This population had pale skin and brown eyes and absorbed populations like the ones Cheddar Man belonged to.

No-one's entirely sure why pale skin evolved in these farmers, but their cereal-based diet was probably deficient in Vitamin D. This would have required agriculturalists to absorb this essential nutrient from sunlight through their skin.

"There may be other factors that are causing lower skin pigmentation over time in the last 10,000 years. But that's the big explanation that most scientists turn to," said Prof Thomas.

I think you would have to show some truly astonishingly compelling evidence to support the theory that white skin and blue eyes evolved entirely independently, considering the scarcity of blue eyes (excluding melanesians who have different blue eye alleles) among darker skinned people, and the paucity of brown eyes amongst the lightest skinned people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

If this intended to debunk concepts of race linked to territory, it achieves the opposite result.

We all (genus Homo) migrated from Africa after which our new environments evolved us into distinct races we see today.

White skin is clearly an adaptation to reduced levels of sunshine in Northern climes.

Having a quick look through the comments on the Guardian's piece on this, it appears that some have chosen to take this finding to prove that everyone who isn't in full support of unlimited immigration is racist because their own ancestors were, ultimately, black.

They've fallen for the same side-show as ever: skin colour. While wilfully ignoring things like practicalities and culture.

It proves nothing of the sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's at times like this I remind myself what crackpot things archaeologists were up to 100 years ago - British Israel, measuring skulls, mongoloids, etc

Edited by Panther

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

From the article :

"British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says

James Owen
for National Geographic News
July 19, 2005


Despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today's white Britons is much the same as it was 12,000 ago, a new book claims.


In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.
Miles, research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, England, says recent genetic and archaeological evidence puts a new perspective on the history of the British people.


"There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons' genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age," Miles said. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Carl Fimble said:

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

From the article :

"British Have Changed Little Since Ice Age, Gene Study Says

James Owen
for National Geographic News
July 19, 2005


Despite invasions by Saxons, Romans, Vikings, Normans, and others, the genetic makeup of today's white Britons is much the same as it was 12,000 ago, a new book claims.


In The Tribes of Britain, archaeologist David Miles says around 80 percent of the genetic characteristics of most white Britons have been passed down from a few thousand Ice Age hunters.
Miles, research fellow at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, England, says recent genetic and archaeological evidence puts a new perspective on the history of the British people.


"There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons' genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age," Miles said. "

We all know the story in the OP is total bollocks Carl, there's no need to prove it further!

It's been torn apart on the So-Called BBC thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Panther said:

It's at times like this I remind myself what crackpot things archaeologists were up to 100 years ago - British Israel, measuring skulls, mongoloids, etc

I think the funding model has changed considerably since then as well. I wonder who funded this bit of research.

Not that I give a shite to be honest.

Like DTmark says. Skin colour is just a side show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

We all know the story in the OP is total bollocks Carl, there's no need to prove it further!

It's been torn apart on the So-Called BBC thread.

So I is not black then mon?

Aw bruv, tell me I ain't no cracker, all I aks is that I am no honkey- they be the lowest of the low these days.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sarahbell said:

"A (single) cutting-edge (iffy?) scientific analysis shows that a (single) Briton from 10,000 years ago had dark skin and blue eyes.

They found the Stone Age Briton (single) had dark hair - with a small probability that it was curlier than average - blue eyes and skin that was probably dark brown or black in tone."

One single sample, by one "cutting edge" team.....

Pushing it as far as they can with the curly hair bit too!!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Carl Fimble said:

"A (single) cutting-edge (iffy?) scientific analysis shows that a (single) Briton from 10,000 years ago had dark skin and blue eyes.

They found the Stone Age Briton (single) had dark hair - with a small probability that it was curlier than average - blue eyes and skin that was probably dark brown or black in tone."

One single sample, by one "cutting edge" team.....

Pushing it as far as they can with the curly hair bit too!!

 

Anyone who has studied early human history will know that all this stuff is based on tiny amounts of evidence. The number of surviving human remains from the distant past in the UK can be counted on your fingers. 

BTW did they mention that Cheddar Man to have met an untimely end at the hand of his fellow humans and may have been eaten by them. Perhaps they just did not like blacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what 'tone'' were egpytians from the first dynasty then as there are plenty of actual representations of them from the period and they are strangely not very 'african' looking.

All very mystifying, as is most aincieny history, as the deeper you look the more dodgy orthodox history becomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

Anyone who has studied early human history will know that all this stuff is based on tiny amounts of evidence. The number of surviving human remains from the distant past in the UK can be counted on your fingers. 

BTW did they mention that Cheddar Man to have met an untimely end at the hand of his fellow humans and may have been eaten by them. Perhaps they just did not like blacks.

Racists the lot of them, and THEY'RE the worst, those people from the past!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Virgil Caine said:

Anyone who has studied early human history will know that all this stuff is based on tiny amounts of evidence. The number of surviving human remains from the distant past in the UK can be counted on your fingers. 

BTW did they mention that Cheddar Man to have met an untimely end at the hand of his fellow humans and may have been eaten by them. Perhaps they just did not like blacks.

Possible historic hate crime?  Tweet Greater Manchester Police at once.

2 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

So what 'tone'' were egpytians from the first dynasty then as there are plenty of actual representations of them from the period and they are strangely not very 'african' looking.

All very mystifying, as is most aincieny history, as the deeper you look the more dodgy orthodox history becomes.

With Achilles being red haired, Sulla (first dictator of Rome) being blonde and various depictions of southern Europeans in the classical era suggests that there has been a northwards drifting of the African population since classical times; coincident with the desertification of North Africa; Libya used to have a massive if shallow lake  The stereotypical Greek or Italian (olive skin, black hair) is probably representative of North Africa in the classical era whereas the classical era populations of Greece and Italy were probably more like northern European populations today.

Purely my impression from studying the period (though I confess my knowledge of Greek history is limited) so no link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Chewing Grass said:

So what 'tone'' were egpytians from the first dynasty then as there are plenty of actual representations of them from the period and they are strangely not very 'african' looking.

All very mystifying, as is most aincieny history, as the deeper you look the more dodgy orthodox history becomes.

I've seen images of early Egyptian art with what look to me like different races. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.