U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2018, 09:18 AM
 
Location: SE UK
8,063 posts, read 6,785,291 times
Reputation: 5507

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
It's probably speculative how dark the person actually was or how representative he was. Even till this day British people vary in complexion, along with eye and hair color. The renditions of the European hunter-gather with blue eyes and dark skin isn't much darker than some of them today. But those phenotypes and lighter, thinner skin is just scratching the surface of differences that make them racially white. Another thing to consider is the hunter-gathers had been in Europe and Britain at least 30,000 before the skeleton remains so if they weren't light complexioned by then it seems unlikely they would become so in a few thousand years the agriculture argument not withstanding.
Good grief that statement is FAR too intelligent! Whatever you do though don't point this (obvious to most of us) fact out to Saxonwold if I were you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-16-2018, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,146 posts, read 19,332,263 times
Reputation: 14014
If you want to know what the first modern humans looked like, look no further than the San people:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voZBPzBE3zU

They have the most ancient racial pedigree of any living peoples, according to Anthropologists.

And that's just fine. I'm white but I realize white skin and blue eyes is the aberration, not the norm for Humanity. That's fine by me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2018, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Early America
1,736 posts, read 848,389 times
Reputation: 3815
Default What do I think of it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
What do you think of this?
I think it unintentionally supports the idea that white people are more evolved. I'm guessing that wasn't your intention either.

A different study found that skin tone has varied for 900,000 years.

The latest findings suggest that some particularly dark skin tones [in Africa] evolved relatively recently from paler genetic variants ...

The new findings mean that relatively pale skin tone variants predate the appearance of our species and have been retained in some parts of Africa.

https://www.newscientist.com/article...-900000-years/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-17-2018, 03:23 PM
 
Location: East of the Sun, West of the Moon
15,646 posts, read 17,976,345 times
Reputation: 31330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
What do you think of this?
I think this has been the scientific consensus for decades already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2018, 12:28 AM
 
Location: Jersey
2,306 posts, read 3,425,391 times
Reputation: 2044
The "light skin genes" were most likely present in a small percentage of the West Eurasian population prior to it's rapid expansion and probably proliferated at a localized level in some areas due to selection factors. I'm not sure why some people are in disbelief that Europe had dark-skinned inhabitants at one point. Heck the languages they spoke during the period died off to. It's quite normal for the genetic and cultural profiles of populations to transform over time due to a number of factors. Case in point, the genetic and cultural profiles of the inhabitants of the Western Hemisphere have undergone extremely drastic changes within the past 500 years.

Last edited by TylerJAX; 02-18-2018 at 12:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-23-2018, 09:18 PM
 
5,405 posts, read 2,044,959 times
Reputation: 3063
I don't really think anything of it, unless there is a specific topic up for discussion.

Though, it can be argued that there is a technical semantic flaw in stating that the first "British" were dark skinned. The word "British" being a name that was a reference to a specific historical tribe who was light skinned (reference members of that tribe in the Kings of Albion a the time of the Roman invasion, and their posterity in the form of dynasties like the Tudors).

For most of civilizational history, it has been common to name places after the people who inhabited them. For example, the term "Wales" is actually a Germano-Roman racial designation for the people who inhabit Wales. You can find forms of the word "Wales" throughout Europe, each time designating an area that was inhabited by people who were of the same essential tribe as the modern Welsh.

For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallonia

Thus, unless the people were the literal ancestors of the Britons, which I'm not saying tha they weren't (I don't know), then they would have been inhabitants of that landmass but not "British" or "Britons" per se.

I've read that it is thought that Cro Magnon man, being representative the most modern human anatomy that is currently observable (as opposed to his neanderthal neighbors for example), was somewhat dark skinned (though having lighter hair and eyes). This could have been an adaption to thousands of years of increased UV exposure from living in an ice and snow covered ice age that would have reflected UV back onto his skin. Or it could have been an evolutionary stage. Or it could be untrue. I'm unsure.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 03:25 PM
 
1,081 posts, read 752,520 times
Reputation: 1033
This guy has blue eyes and would have had tanned skin but he wouldn’t be African in appearance
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-24-2018, 04:50 PM
 
Location: 912 feet above sea level
2,270 posts, read 907,170 times
Reputation: 12493
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimplySagacious View Post
I think it unintentionally supports the idea that white people are more evolved. I'm guessing that wasn't your intention either.
There is no such thing as 'more evolved'. The very phrase screams "I don't understand evolution!".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-25-2018, 05:45 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
13,980 posts, read 8,788,169 times
Reputation: 20401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
What do you think of this?
Isn't that a little like finding the remains of Leif Erikson in Nova Scotia and concluding that the original inhabitants of North America had light skin and beards?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2019, 11:10 PM
 
6,612 posts, read 9,152,640 times
Reputation: 2872
This came sometime later.


"A BRITON who lived 10,000 years ago had dark brown skin and blue eyes. At least, that’s what dozens of news stories last month – including our own – stated as fact. Now one of the geneticists who performed the research says the conclusion is not certain, and according to others we are not even close to knowing the skin colour of any ancient human."

https://www.newscientist.com/article...#ixzz5yRDJN3BY
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top