Dogs Sleeping Forum

Lambert wrote:Very interesting. I'm not entirely sure why they've called him the 'first modern Briton'. Is there evidence to suggest he was typical of the population at that time? 90% of white Britons don't share his ancestry. I'll have to watch the documentary.

McAz wrote:

Guest wrote:The first modern Briton had “dark to black” skin, groundbreaking new analysis of his 10,000-year-old remains has revealed.

Wonder what the racists will make of this!

They'll all pile in on the thread with what they think are smart-arse comments and spoilers - what else?

Trapper John wrote:

Guest wrote:

Trapper John wrote:

Guest wrote:The first modern Briton had “dark to black” skin, groundbreaking new analysis of his 10,000-year-old remains has revealed.

Britain’s oldest complete skeleton, known as Cheddar Man, was unearthed more than a century ago in Gough’s Cave in Somerset.

But an unprecedented examination of his DNA, along with a facial reconstruction of the fossil, shows the young man would have had a darker complexion than previously thought, along with blue eyes and dark, curly hair.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... e=Facebook

Wonder what the racists will make of this!

Don't suppose they'll make much of it at all. why would they?

The problem with finding the 'oldest' skeletons of long lost peoples is they are only the oldest until an older one gets found and finding bones let alone complete skeletons is rarer than rocking horse shit.

And anyway is it any real surprise? I mean as modern archeological thought has always maintained that modern man originated in Africa then it stands to reason they'd have pigmented skin to protect them from the sun.

I don't know of any modern black humans who have blue eyes and I note they don't say whether the rest of the skeleton has the same characteristics of modern black people.

So to try and make this arguable finding into some sort of racial issue is pointless and really quite pathetic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... MudD9BXUWY

Seems like you're the one who is being a pathetic racist cunt

How so retard? - why would a recessive gene in a small number of people make any difference to my post?

If anyone is obsessed by 'race' it appears to be you, no-one else and the weakness of your thread validates that.

MungoBrush wrote:

Lambert wrote:Very interesting. I'm not entirely sure why they've called him the 'first modern Briton'. Is there evidence to suggest he was typical of the population at that time? 90% of white Britons don't share his ancestry. I'll have to watch the documentary.

I thought that it was interesting as well.
The article states that the first white skinned people to reach the UK came from the Middle East.

"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."

Guest wrote:

McAz wrote:

Guest wrote:The first modern Briton had “dark to black” skin, groundbreaking new analysis of his 10,000-year-old remains has revealed.

Wonder what the racists will make of this!

They'll all pile in on the thread with what they think are smart-arse comments and spoilers - what else?

Meanwhile, "non-racists" will continue to make EVERYTHING about race, which is ironically, racism....

Lambert wrote:

MungoBrush wrote:

Lambert wrote:Very interesting. I'm not entirely sure why they've called him the 'first modern Briton'. Is there evidence to suggest he was typical of the population at that time? 90% of white Britons don't share his ancestry. I'll have to watch the documentary.

I thought that it was interesting as well.
The article states that the first white skinned people to reach the UK came from the Middle East.

"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."

Seems the Independent's headline is somewhat misleading. I don't know what's considered 'modern' in anthropological terms but if we're really talking modern Britons perhaps we ought to look back to that migration from the Middle East instead.

Rolluplostinspace wrote:I read somewhere recently but didn't follow it up that more Scottish people are genetically related to Tutankhamun than Egyptian people are.

Major wrote:Without a doubt he would have been a turd burglar from Cumbria seeking otherz of his persuasion.

Rolluplostinspace wrote:I read somewhere recently but didn't follow it up that more Scottish people are genetically related to Tutankhamun than Egyptian people are.

Lady Murasaki wrote:

Rolluplostinspace wrote:I read somewhere recently but didn't follow it up that more Scottish people are genetically related to Tutankhamun than Egyptian people are.

I'm related to Genghis Khan. As are millions of others, but I take after him more than them.

McAz wrote:

Lady Murasaki wrote:

Rolluplostinspace wrote:I read somewhere recently but didn't follow it up that more Scottish people are genetically related to Tutankhamun than Egyptian people are.

I'm related to Genghis Khan. As are millions of others, but I take after him more than them.

Mostly far-righters though.

Lady Murasaki wrote:

McAz wrote:

Lady Murasaki wrote:

Rolluplostinspace wrote:I read somewhere recently but didn't follow it up that more Scottish people are genetically related to Tutankhamun than Egyptian people are.

I'm related to Genghis Khan. As are millions of others, but I take after him more than them.

Mostly far-righters though.

I'm only conservative with a small c.
And warrior with a small w.

ETA: that makes me a wc!