Cheddar Man

[Maeght]

Why do they look down on people who don't have white skins?

Obviously its about race not whether they have a tan or not. Are you on a wind up?

[floo]

Obviously its about race not whether they have a tan or not. Are you on a wind up?

I have no idea what you are talking about!

[Maeght]

The black skin isn't really news- we've known that for decades ('Britain First' probably can't read anyway). The recon thing though - that's a bit iffy. I'm not criticising the effrt, nor disputing the result; just noting that if you take three different teams using the same skull and modern tech, you can get three quite differnt faicial reconstructions - which only help to raise the blood pressure in the ivory towers. In my own interest, I'm on several groups where the argument over a recon of the facer of as controversial mummy identified in some quarters as Nefertiti, is causing ructions....wrong skin colour, that sort of thing.

Was it known for decades that Cheddar man was dark skinned? My understanding is that is relatively new. I thought it was still thought that by the time man had migrated this far north that their skin was lighter until fairly recently. Is that incorrect?

[floo]

Maybe all humans started out with dark skins, but they got lighter the further north you lived, as the climate got colder.

[Sriram]

Maybe all humans started out with dark skins, but they got lighter the further north you lived, as the climate got colder.

European homo sapiens are believed to have developed lighter skins because of cross breeding with Neanderthals...who were light skinned. That was much earlier to the Cheddar man (50000 BP). So how Cheddar man has dark skin as late as 10000 years ago is not clear.

[Harrowby Hall]

Maybe all humans started out with dark skins, but they got lighter the further north you lived, as the climate got colder.

Maeght (#18)  has already provided a link to a scientific article which considers the process by which white skin has become prevalent in Europe.

(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/04/how-europeans-evolved-white-skin)

A subsequent note by the author of the above link adds:

Scientists get their first look at ‘Cheddar Man,’ one of England’s oldest modern humans
By Ann GibbonsFeb. 7, 2018 , 12:55 PM

Researchers have put a face on one of the oldest modern humans in England—the 10,000-year-old “Cheddar Man” from Gough’s Cave in Cheddar Gorge—and they reveal he had blue eyes and dark skin and hair. The as-yet-unpublished ancient DNA from the nearly complete skeleton of this individual will show that he lacked genetic variants for light skin that spread later in Europeans, according to researchers at the Natural History Museum in London who have unveiled a new reconstruction; they say a scientific paper is coming later this month. Researchers already knew that some Europeans of this time had dark skin and blue eyes, but Cheddar Man reveals that previous assumptions that early inhabitants of the British Isles had lighter skin and hair were wrong—and that those traits didn’t spread through England until the past 4800 years or so.

[ippy]

The black skin isn't really news- we've known that for decades ('Britain First' probably can't read anyway). The recon thing though - that's a bit iffy. I'm not criticising the effrt, nor disputing the result; just noting that if you take three different teams using the same skull and modern tech, you can get three quite differnt faicial reconstructions - which only help to raise the blood pressure in the ivory towers. In my own interest, I'm on several groups where the argument over a recon of the facer of as controversial mummy identified in some quarters as Nefertiti, is causing ructions....wrong skin colour, that sort of thing.

I think you'll find there's a group of scientists from Belgium that are using their ability to read genes which in turn is also helping with the reconstruction of how people looked, colour of the eyes skin etc.

Amazing, I'll have to give up robbing banks sideline soon because I'll only have to leave a small amount of my D N A and they'll have a likeness of myself printed out all over the media the next day, it's about time I gave it up anyway.

Regards ippy   

[Maeght]

European homo sapiens are believed to have developed lighter skins because of cross breeding with Neanderthals...who were light skinned. That was much earlier to the Cheddar man (50000 BP). So how Cheddar man has dark skin as late as 10000 years ago is not clear.

Don't think that is right Sriram. Did you read the link I posted? Take a look at this one too https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22308-europeans-did-not-inherit-pale-skins-from-neanderthals/
Modern DNA testing is changing our understanding of this in recent years.

[Sriram]

Don't think that is right Sriram. Did you read the link I posted? Take a look at this one too https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22308-europeans-did-not-inherit-pale-skins-from-neanderthals/
Modern DNA testing is changing our understanding of this in recent years.

Yeah.. I agree.  I took my info from some articles like...

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22129542-600-neanderthal-human-sex-bred-light-skins-and-infertility/

But it is true that there are many complex possibilities.  And I guess the last word has not been said on this yet.

Thanks...Maeght.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

We need to remember that without the aid of a time machine we cannot exactly know what people of the past looked like with their. Assume that Homo Ergastor was hairy, & he looks more like an upright ape than a human. Assume that his body hair was more like our own, & he looks more like us.

[Maeght]

But it is true that there are many complex possibilities.  And I guess the last word has not been said on this yet.

Probably true. Interesting stuff.

[Anchorman]

Was it known for decades that Cheddar man was dark skinned? My understanding is that is relatively new. I thought it was still thought that by the time man had migrated this far north that their skin was lighter until fairly recently. Is that incorrect?

Trying to find an online link, but I have papers written by Mortimer Wheeler (yes, I'm that old) which I read at Uni in 1980, where Wheeler maintained that the first hunter-gatherers who migrated to this part of Northern Europe - we were still joined to the continent by both the land bridge and 'Doggerland' - had to have been African in appearance, as there was not enough time for the paler sins to evolve.

[Maeght]

Trying to find an online link, but I have papers written by Mortimer Wheeler (yes, I'm that old) which I read at Uni in 1980, where Wheeler maintained that the first hunter-gatherers who migrated to this part of Northern Europe - we were still joined to the continent by both the land bridge and 'Doggerland' - had to have been African in appearance, as there was not enough time for the paler sins to evolve.

There is a difference between one person maintaining something and it being known though isn't there. I think the majority view was different, but the more recent evidence shows Wheeler was correct.

[Maeght]

Was reading more about this today and thought there was some interesting info. It was saying that the Vitamin D link to pale skin didn't apply to hunter gatherers because they got enough Vitamin D from their diet. It suggested the pale skin gene came later when farming people came across from europe 6,000 years ago. It said due to the different diet of these people which was low in Vitamin D pale skin, allowing the vitamin to be better synthesized from sun light, gave a survival advantage. The reason pale skins became dominant was due to numbers arriving and the subsequent change in life style.

[Maeght]

More stuff about the genetic makeup of Britons in the news today with confirmation that changes that saw the Beaker culture enter these islands around 4,500 years ago  was as a result of an influx of people rather than ideas. Not particularly an invasion but a gradual increase in movement of people from the continent.

[Sriram]

We must remember that Europeans differ from Africans and Asians not only in skin colour.  There are many other differences.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

We must remember that Europeans differ from Africans and Asians not only in skin colour.  There are many other differences.
[/quote]

And there are Native Australians, and those from wider Australasia/Oceania.

You disappoint me Sriram. It is not just a matter of "Whites" "Blacks" and "Asians".

[Sriram]

We must remember that Europeans differ from Africans and Asians not only in skin colour.  There are many other differences.


And there are Native Australians, and those from wider Australasia/Oceania.

You disappoint me Sriram. It is not just a matter of "Whites" "Blacks" and "Asians".

ALright....you can always add to the list. How does that change the spirit of what I am saying?!   

[Humph Warden Bennett]

ALright....you can always add to the list. How does that change the spirit of what I am saying?!

Because the outdated "British" idea of "whites" "blacks" and "asians" ignores the vast changes over the past few years. I silenced a Muslim when he claimed to be an "ethnic minority" when I pointed out that my kids are, thanks to Ukip, "Anglo Romanians".

"Brown" people ain't the only ethnic minorities anymore. Sorry to take your ball away.

[Nearly Sane]

We must remember that Europeans differ from Africans and Asians not only in skin colour.  There are many other differences.

Are any of them, including skin colour,  significant?

[Sriram]

Because the outdated "British" idea of "whites" "blacks" and "asians" ignores the vast changes over the past few years. I silenced a Muslim when he claimed to be an "ethnic minority" when I pointed out that my kids are, thanks to Ukip, "Anglo Romanians".

"Brown" people ain't the only ethnic minorities anymore. Sorry to take your ball away.

What are you talking about HWB?!  I was merely pointing out that its not just about how white skin developed, vitamin D and all that stuff. Its also about other features that differentiates Europeans from others.   That is all.   You are going off at a tangent!

[Maeght]

I think the science is showing that there was much more movement of people rather than just ideas in the past, meaning we are all a greater mix of different DNAs than we might imagine.

[Sriram]

I think the science is showing that there was much more movement of people rather than just ideas in the past, meaning we are all a greater mix of different DNAs than we might imagine.

Yes...but racial differences are real. I understand that even from a skull the race of a person can be identified. So, how these racial differences (not just skin colour) arose if we all are from Africa, is really an interesting issue.

[Maeght]

Genetic mutations, natural selection, genetic mixing all lead to different genetically similar groups we call races, as I understand it.

[ippy]

Yes...but racial differences are real. I understand that even from a skull the race of a person can be identified. So, how these racial differences (not just skin colour) arose if we all are from Africa, is really an interesting issue.

I think you're starting on this thread again Sriram, just because you're jealous of how good looking us blokes are that happen to live in the more northern climes of this world,

Regards ippy