![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I don't believe that the Cheddar man should be in the category "mummies" if the article states that he was a complete human skeleton. --Your's Truly,
Parasect
(Discuss)
18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
U5a is most common in Finland and areas near Finland (not France or Spain). High frequencies are found in Finland, Estonia, Russia (european side), Sweden and especially in Norway. Ancestors of the Cheddar man most likely came from Fennoscandian peninsula or area next to it. Mtdna in european populations:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v68n3/002146/002146.tb3.html
On another topic, the article says "the cannibalism practiced in the area". I think that should be rephrased to make it clear that the cannibalism was practiced in the area at the time of cheddar man.
Is Cheddar man a real "fossil" in the true geological sense of the word? Some would say it is simply a well preserved skeleton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.159.15.46 ( talk) 10:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
"...may have originated in West Asia"
"...lends extreme credence to the theory that modern-day Britons are not all descended from Middle-Eastern migratory farmers"
These two phrases contradict each other. Grant | Talk 10:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is completely off topic to the "Cheddar Man" topic. It is well known that Paleolithic Europe was colonized from West Asia around 40 kya, the dedicated entry for that being European early modern humans. It is also well known that this lineage (dubbed "WHG") contributes substantially, but to less than 50%, to most modern European populations, the other significant contributions being EEF (Neolithic) and ANE (Chalcolithic). Cheddar Man is just a data point in this topic. The problem with writing this kind of article based on journalism is that the journalists are going to give a garbled overview of the wider field related to the topic, but our encyclopedic articles should instead try to remain focused on what is WP:DUE. Please discuss Cheddar Man's genome here, but discuss the WHG lineage at West European Hunter-Gatherer, and the general topic of the genetic ancestry of British populations at Genetic history of the British Isles, and then refer to these pages for details. Also avoid using journalistic "references" as much as possible, it is just as easy and much more useful to just cite the original paper directly. All that we need to note here is that Cheddar Man is compatible with WHG. If there are any details on genetic difference to the WHG reference genome, do point them out, but don't go on a tangent explaining what WHG means, let alone how "modern-day Britons are not all descended" from this or that stock (which is true a priori because of the undue weight carried by the all in this sentence). -- dab (𒁳) 15:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
WHGs were different than Paleolithic Europeans or even only slightly older El Miron cluster. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 16:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I have looked into the sources cited a bit more based on my comments above. Two observations:
The article claimed that Cheddar Man had black skin even though the sources only say "dark complexion" and "dark skin". According to this article and video on bbc.com, which shows the "official" reconstruction of Cheddar Man, based on the DNA analysis, his skin was brown, not black. I was about to change it, but an IP beat me to it, but just to avoid edit-wars over it I thought I'd post a link to the video here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The Guardian is not a source. This is about journalists asking "could we even say ... black?" until the scientists go "yes, if you must", hence the headline "ZOMG FIRST BRITON WAS BLACK". If you want encyclopedic information on WHG skin color reconstruction, don't go to journalists. The Cheddar people are just reporting they have found an allele in this skeleton that has already been well described elsewhere. For the description of said allele, go to SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. "Derived immune and ancestral pigmentation allelesin a 7,000-year-old Mesolithic European" Nature, January 2014. doi:10.1038/nature12960 and related publications. [1]: Wilde, S. et al. "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111 , 4832-4837 (2014).
Whatever you do with this, make sure the discussion is based on actual publications, ignoring journalism. -- dab (𒁳) 06:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfounded conspiracy claims |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Your conspiracy theory that they aren't tabloid,especially the guarding, the bbc and the dailht telepgraph proves they are based on previous tabloid behavior and articles. Elvis is still alive is considered tabloid. and since you didn't have a argument and admitted you were wrong since you didn't address the other argument then yes, they are tabloids and the rest was true aswell. 77.53.219.61 ( talk) 00:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Article says:
Can this please be clarified?
Is it now thought that Cheddar Man really did belong to Haplogroup U5 or really did not belong to this group?
(It's not obvious to the lay reader whether West European Hunter-Gatherer ancestry rules out membership in Haplogroup U5 or is compatible with it.)
thanks -- 189.60.63.116 ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
We don't know, because the recent "information" on this is not based on a publication but entirely on a Channel 4 television program. There is nothing to report until they publish their study. To answer your question, I believe U5 is correlated with WHG, but we cannot expect any population, even a Mesolithic one, to have just one haplogroup: this would indicate a very serious population bottleneck in the recent past: so while U5 might "indicate" WHG, neither does it establish it, nor would non-U5 be sufficient to establish non-membership in WHG. Identifying "ancestry" based on haplogroups was just the best they could do back in the 1990s, but we have much better tools now, and the popular reliance on mt/Y haplogroups stands in no relation to the quality of results that can be expected in modern studies. This does not translate to, as the NYT seems to think, "10% of British people are WHG and the remaining 90% aren't WHG". This is just nonsense.
About 10% of Europeans have U5, which might be an indication that roughly 10% of European ancestry is WHG derived. In other words: I would recommend removing the entire "U5" part as a 1990s red herring. Fwiiw, U5 is more frequent (higher than 10%, but still lower than 50%) among Basques and Finns, suggesting that Neolithic and Indo-European admixture was weaker in these regions. -- dab (𒁳) 06:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
According to the article by the Natural History Museum, Cheddar Man shares only 10% DNA with modern Britons. This should be added.
I quote: "Modern-day British people share approximately 10% of their genetic ancestry with the European population to which Cheddar Man belonged, but they aren't direct descendants. Current thinking is that the Mesolithic population that Cheddar Man belonged to was mostly replaced by the farmers that migrated into Britain later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.94.135 ( talk) 13:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I noticed that Sarah Bollard the name of one of the students of Adrian Targett had been added to this article. I have removed it as I do not think it this is significant enough to add into an encyclopaedia, but if anyone knows why this should be included could you explain here?— Rod talk 11:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty definite that he was both of those, and the category Black British seems indisputable. Admittedly he's not a part of the modern population, and doesn't share culture with any modern inhabitant of the British Isles, so another subcategory might be appropriate, aboriginal black British for example. But the fact of (near) blackness and indisputable Britishness make it bizarre to exclude him. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I note the article on Black British starts with a very brief reference to Roman period, the is no reason why it should not now correctly start with Cheddar Man. Cheddar Man maybe the earliest known example, but he belongs to the Category:Black British people -- BOD -- 19:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Richard Keatinge: This discussion is leading nowhere. Several editors, me included, have tried to make you understand that the term Black British has a specific meaning, just like African-American has, and can not be applied to someone from 10K years ago who has only one thing in common with "Black British people", dark skin, and wasn't British since Britain as we know it didn't exist back then (it was a peninsula on a European continent that didn't look anything like Europe looks today...). It's also obvious that your addition of Category:Black British people is not supported by other editors, so why don't you just drop it? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
At this edit I have rewritten the article on the basis of the NHM's FAQ and their pre-publication paper. I have also used references in those sources. Since the FAQ includes details about the subsequent genetic inflow into the area, and possible natural selection over the last few thousand years, and since some of the blog etc. comment seems confused on the subject, I have included those details in the article. I hope that suits everyone, but if not, do discuss here. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know what the contentions are with my edits about the genetic contributions of Neolithic and Bronze Age migrations to modern, indigenous (Anglo-Celtic), Britons in the section of this article specifically dealing with this topic? The edit summaries of the reverts from the opposing editor has not been sufficient. I specifically do not understand the opposition to using "indigenous" or "aboriginal", since that is exactly the population of what all of these studies and findings are referring to. They are not referring to foreign or foreign-descended ethnic groups or populations in Britain who only arrived in the past 100 years, but only to those of Mesolithic-Neolithic-Bronze Age ancestry - Celtic peoples and English/Anglo-Saxons; these 3 major groupings include later migrations by related northwestern European people with different frequencies and genetic mutations from the same three large groups. The Anglo-Saxons are known to have been the only migration to have substantially changed genetically regions of mainland Britain (specifically eastern England and lowland Scotland) since the Bronze Age, while the Norwegian Vikings contributed significantly in Orkney and Shetland. Both those groups are varations from a similar Mesolithic-Neolithic-Bronze Age mixture. The study I am including, specifically discusses how the genetics of modern indigenous Celtic Britons - Irish, Welsh and Scots, but also western historically Celtic regions of England like Somerset - have changed very little since the Bronze Age Gaelic Celtic migration 4,000 years ago ( Neolithic and Bronze Age migration to Ireland and establishment of the insular Atlantic genome).
On a further note, the Neolithic and Bronze Age contributions are still indigenous. For example, in the Americas, the ancestors of the modern Inuit (the Thule) have only arrived in their present range in Alaska, the Canadian Arctic and Greenland in the past 1,000 to 2,000 years. However, they are still obviously considered aboriginal to those regions and to pre-date the modern arrival of European colonists into those lands in the past 300 years. Other indigenous peoples in the Americas pre-dated their arrival by over 12,000 years. Nobody, however, questions that the Inuit are still the indigenous, aboriginal population of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland. Interestingly, the Inuit also absorbed the genetics of an older, less advanced people when they arrived 1,000 to 2,000 years ago, known as the Dorset culture.
Just as the more advanced Thule ancestors of the Inuit mix with the original Dorset culture, so did the more advanced Neolithic and Bronze Age (Celtic first, then Anglo-Saxon) settlers mix with the Mesolithic aboriginals in Britain. And just as the Inuit are still considered indigenous in the modern context, despite having ancestry from arrivals after the first inhabitants, so are the modern Mesolithic-Neolithic-Bronze Age Britons still considered indigenous. There has been very little to no genetic change to Celtic Irish, Scots or Welsh since the Bronze Age - a period of 4,000 years - and little to no change to the English and Lowland Scots since the Anglo-Saxon settlement - a period of 1,500 years.
Any claims that Celtic and Anglo-Saxon peoples of modern Britain are not 'indigenous' because of later Neolithic and Bronze Age origins of their ancestry is unfounded and unsupported. If that were the case, then the Inuit would not be indigenous/aboriginal either (they were pre-dated by the Dorset), nor the Bantu Zulu in South Africa since they only arrived in the past 1,500 years (and they were pre-dated by 100,000 years by the Khoisan), and the Indo-Aryan peoples of northern India would not be indigenous since they were pre-dated by thousands of years by the Dravidians of southern India (with remnants in the north). The Sinhalese have been in Sri Lanka for 2,500 years, but the Veddah people have been there much, much longer. But no one would deny that the Sinhalese are indigenous to Sri Lanka in comparison to the arrival of modern Arabs and Tamils in Sri Lanka, let alone others in the past 100 years.
I hope this elucidates things and stops any insane thinking certain radical left-wing liberal political agendas that somehow Britain has no indigenous ethnic groups. The Irish, Scots, Manx ( Gaels), Cornish, Welsh, English, and Orcadians/ Shetlanders 'are' the aboriginal/indigenous peoples of the British Isles, in order of time they arrived from oldest to most recent. Go to an Inuit and say he is not indigenous, or a Zulu, or a Bengali, or a Japanese people ( Yayoi arrived in Japan 4,000 years ago, but were pre-dated by the Jomon/modern Ainu) - obviously no one with any intelligence would make such a claim. Libertas et Veritas ( talk) 01:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
When I read a sentence like:
I expect the citation of a 2018 publication. Instead, we got press releases and journalism. It was highly suspicious at the time that the involved people would keep talking to the press but would not condescend to publish whatever it was they had found. This was three months ago. Where is the publication? Maybe even a preprint?
It is already extremely bad form to talk to journalists before you publish your paper, but to talk to journalists but then never publish the paper seemed inconceivable, but I couldn't find it. So I checked Barnes' homepage [4] He has three publications dated 2018, one about beavers, one about deer, and one as a co-author in a host of co-authors, on "The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe".
Where is the Cheddar Man paper? Why is Barnes all over the media touting his recent work on the Cheddar Man's genome when he didn't publish anything about it? If the study whimpered and died under peer review, would this not at least require another press relese saying "never mind"? -- dab (𒁳) 09:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the preprint. The relevant section should now be based on this.
The "public interest" appears to be entirely based on race-baiting and semantic games surrounding the term "immigrant", in my mind a clear abuse of genetics for current-day ideological purposes -- this is why I am of the opinion that no journalism should be allowed in our paleoanthropology or genetic genealogy article outside of "in popular culture" sections. -- dab (𒁳) 15:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Fwiiw, the debate on European skin pigmentation alleles should be delegated to light skin or genetic history of Europe. Pertinent literature is already cited at: SLC24A5#Effect_on_skin_color and SLC45A2#Function. According to this (2012), there was a "proto-Eurasian" "initial sweep" about 30 ka, shared by Western and Eastern Eurasians (this is the "dark skin" of WHG), and the European-specific "selective sweeps at SLC24A5, SLC45A2, and TYRP1 " beginning about 19 ka (during the LGM). According to this (2015), the oldest known ancient DNA with this allele dates to 13 ka and was found in the Caucasus. -- dab (𒁳) 16:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
At this diff material - though not the source refs - was removed with the comment "source retracted". Where is this retraction? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is Cheddar Man's male haplogroup not known, when his entire genome was mapped? Oh and by the way - the people who left Africa 45,000 years ago were of the Black phenotype - like the Andamanese, the Semang, the Melanesians and more. Get used to it. 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 14:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, the out of Africa theory remains a theory with no actual evidence proving it to be correct or factual.
Human remains have been found around the world pre-dating 45,000 years, in fact some over 500,000 years.
Pre humans dating back millions of years existed outside Africa.
The Africa theory is not a good example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:60E2:179B:6D02:1ED2 ( talk) 06:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Did he have dark to black skin? most likely not.
One of the leading experts who worked on the reconstruction of his face and with the genetics team states, we simply don't know his skin colour.
The Geneticist came under scrutiny after her co-worker and the global media rallied to promote this theory as a fact.
The global medias published he had blue eyes and dark skin, so was she being racist, was she lying, why was she arguing this after the world has been told he had dark skin?
Her claim was and is supported, there is no evidence what so ever the Cheddar man had dark to black skin.
Modern politics was blamed. Modern beliefs on equality and diversity have been common in all aspects of science.
There is a very clear promotion of a theory we all came from Africa or Asia.
For example, the out if Africa (theory) remains a belief, there is no evidence to support it as factual, and there is actually a lot of evidence showing humans did not all come from Africa.
Yet, the oldest pre-human with human DNA was found in Europe, this theory shines a light on pre-human migration, how humans evolved outside Africa and migrated into Africa.
What some academics have said about the modern push, reverse racism, racist science. It's down to opinion, however, Genetics experts have said they are unhappy with the statement the Cheddar man had dark skin with the lack of evidence, that and the fact no other relatives have been found, he was one and one only and the possibility of the Cheddar man being a migrant was still possible meaning he could have been born abroad.
There seems to be a culture growing within science to prove all of the earth was African, dark-skinned or ethnic prior Celt ancestry, however, there is no evidence, only chosen theories.
What we have is another theory, one that many including academics say has been debunked.
The Cheddar man's skin colour is unknown to this day.
2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:60E2:179B:6D02:1ED2 ( talk) 06:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Sreader.
Let's reach a solution on the presentation of the controversies over Brace 2018, its interpretation in the previous version of the article, and the paper's stance on "dark to very dark skin" among other findings. Many of the assertions in the previous version are not supported by the sources (e.g Brown eyes originating ) and as well as a lack of detail in the contrary stances, there are general wording issues. But I would be happy to work to reach a neutral and comprehensive layout for the page. PLease suggest below any rewording or refocuses, or suggestion to remove or change any of my recent edits. I have endeavoured to represent the sources presented but if anyone believes I have overstepped then you are welcome to say where and how. Vaurnheart ( talk) 15:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
In reply to the above statement, the New scientist Article is the only source. Here are a few other sources below, not limited to. Sources:
- The Daily Mail - Stating Scientists around the world have stated its impossible to determine skin colour. The group who predicted the colour of skin are not the only scientists on earth, or professionals nor are they regarded as the best.
- Indiana University - We do not know his skin colour.
- Natural History Museum - We predicted his skin colour. (Prediction alone is not basis for factual statements), example: The news today predicts sun with light showers, outcome = No sun or rain, just clouds.
- Colin Barras, Human Origins, Scientist & Writer - Our ancestors who reached the UK 30.000 years ago had plenty of time to evolve white skin.
- World Press - The statement (The first Britons were black) is false and incorrectly thrown around as we have human remains that are 3000 to 4000 years older than the Cheddar Man that DOES NOT share his DNA and has no indication of having dark to black skin.
Wikipedia - The oldest human remains found in the UK are around 500.000 years old, (no evidence of dark to black skin), Neanderthals dating to around 400,000, Oxford University & British Museum press, European Journal of Genetics.
The statement (The First Britons) had dark to black skin is evidence of modern discrimination & potential scientific racism within modern science, or what is being known as reverse-racism based on the (fact) the first humans in the UK dated back hundreds of thousands of years before the Cheddar Man and the (fact) he was one in a kind, just one male with no other kin in the entire UK, we have just one man who may have been dark to black skinned which is not sufficient evidence to prove the first the first Britons as a whole people had dark to Black skin.
The oldest pre-human remains on earth have been discovered in Europe, this alone can prove the Out of Africa theory as false, yet the discovery of one set of remains does not qualify the theory wrong, even if they are older than the remains found in Africa.
It is a prediction that the Cheddar Man may have had dark to black skin, there is no concrete evidence however to prove such a thing. The source supplied was pone of the leading Scientists on the examining team, you cannot get a better source than the scientist who actually studied the DNA.
The fact remains - Did the Cheddar man have dark to black skin, we do not know and there is no evidence of such. 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:C425:2DFE:927B:3FFF ( talk) 11:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Sreader.
I'm also concerned about your historical map of skin color,which you describe as being "based on the scientific consensus at the time of creation". It appears to be based on rather a lot of original research, in particular discounting the evidence - which we agree is imperfect - for darker skin color among Western Hunter Gatherers in general and Cheddar Man in particular. By way of support for this comment, I note that the map is derived from https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027 A traditional skin color map based on the data of Biasutti. Reproduced from http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/ with permission from Dennis O'Neil." - which isn't available, and seems to be referenced to Relethford 1998, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199712)104:4%3C449::AID-AJPA2%3E3.0.CO;2-N, which in turn doesn't seem to support any historical change element and was published too long ago to use any of the more recent genetic data. The reference to Biasutti as the source of the original data appears to refer to Renato Biasutti, who died in 1965 and as far as I can see made no attempt to do much beyond documenting characteristics of then-living populations.
Additional references include "Development of paler skin genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2-F374 from Scandinavia: Günther T, Malmström H, Svensson EM, Omrak A, Sánchez-Quinto F, Kılınç GM, et al. (2018) Population genomics of Mesolithic Scandinavia: Investigating early postglacial migration routes and high-latitude adaptation. PLoS Biol 16(1): e2003703. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003703 - which is relevant to skin color in Mesolithic Sweden but not in the British Isles. And "Convergent development of light skin among Palaeolithic East Asians and the later development of darker skin gene variations of MFSD12 among Native Americans: Kaustubh Adhikari, et al. A GWAS in Latin Americans highlights the convergent evolution of lighter skin pigmentation in Eurasia. Nature Communications, 2019; 10 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-08147-0" again doesn't speak to the characteristics of the Western Hunter Gatherer population.
I commend your industry in generating this file, and some of it may be arguable, but overall it is original research and it also offers spurious accuracy. I feel that your file should not be used in its current form anywhere on Wikipedia, and I will ask on its talk page for its withdrawal until suitably amended. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I don't believe that the Cheddar man should be in the category "mummies" if the article states that he was a complete human skeleton. --Your's Truly,
Parasect
(Discuss)
18:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
U5a is most common in Finland and areas near Finland (not France or Spain). High frequencies are found in Finland, Estonia, Russia (european side), Sweden and especially in Norway. Ancestors of the Cheddar man most likely came from Fennoscandian peninsula or area next to it. Mtdna in european populations:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v68n3/002146/002146.tb3.html
On another topic, the article says "the cannibalism practiced in the area". I think that should be rephrased to make it clear that the cannibalism was practiced in the area at the time of cheddar man.
Is Cheddar man a real "fossil" in the true geological sense of the word? Some would say it is simply a well preserved skeleton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.159.15.46 ( talk) 10:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
"...may have originated in West Asia"
"...lends extreme credence to the theory that modern-day Britons are not all descended from Middle-Eastern migratory farmers"
These two phrases contradict each other. Grant | Talk 10:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is completely off topic to the "Cheddar Man" topic. It is well known that Paleolithic Europe was colonized from West Asia around 40 kya, the dedicated entry for that being European early modern humans. It is also well known that this lineage (dubbed "WHG") contributes substantially, but to less than 50%, to most modern European populations, the other significant contributions being EEF (Neolithic) and ANE (Chalcolithic). Cheddar Man is just a data point in this topic. The problem with writing this kind of article based on journalism is that the journalists are going to give a garbled overview of the wider field related to the topic, but our encyclopedic articles should instead try to remain focused on what is WP:DUE. Please discuss Cheddar Man's genome here, but discuss the WHG lineage at West European Hunter-Gatherer, and the general topic of the genetic ancestry of British populations at Genetic history of the British Isles, and then refer to these pages for details. Also avoid using journalistic "references" as much as possible, it is just as easy and much more useful to just cite the original paper directly. All that we need to note here is that Cheddar Man is compatible with WHG. If there are any details on genetic difference to the WHG reference genome, do point them out, but don't go on a tangent explaining what WHG means, let alone how "modern-day Britons are not all descended" from this or that stock (which is true a priori because of the undue weight carried by the all in this sentence). -- dab (𒁳) 15:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
WHGs were different than Paleolithic Europeans or even only slightly older El Miron cluster. Oranjelo100 ( talk) 16:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I have looked into the sources cited a bit more based on my comments above. Two observations:
The article claimed that Cheddar Man had black skin even though the sources only say "dark complexion" and "dark skin". According to this article and video on bbc.com, which shows the "official" reconstruction of Cheddar Man, based on the DNA analysis, his skin was brown, not black. I was about to change it, but an IP beat me to it, but just to avoid edit-wars over it I thought I'd post a link to the video here... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
The Guardian is not a source. This is about journalists asking "could we even say ... black?" until the scientists go "yes, if you must", hence the headline "ZOMG FIRST BRITON WAS BLACK". If you want encyclopedic information on WHG skin color reconstruction, don't go to journalists. The Cheddar people are just reporting they have found an allele in this skeleton that has already been well described elsewhere. For the description of said allele, go to SLC24A5 and SLC45A2. "Derived immune and ancestral pigmentation allelesin a 7,000-year-old Mesolithic European" Nature, January 2014. doi:10.1038/nature12960 and related publications. [1]: Wilde, S. et al. "Direct evidence for positive selection of skin, hair, and eye pigmentation in Europeans during the last 5,000 y." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 111 , 4832-4837 (2014).
Whatever you do with this, make sure the discussion is based on actual publications, ignoring journalism. -- dab (𒁳) 06:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfounded conspiracy claims |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Your conspiracy theory that they aren't tabloid,especially the guarding, the bbc and the dailht telepgraph proves they are based on previous tabloid behavior and articles. Elvis is still alive is considered tabloid. and since you didn't have a argument and admitted you were wrong since you didn't address the other argument then yes, they are tabloids and the rest was true aswell. 77.53.219.61 ( talk) 00:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Article says:
Can this please be clarified?
Is it now thought that Cheddar Man really did belong to Haplogroup U5 or really did not belong to this group?
(It's not obvious to the lay reader whether West European Hunter-Gatherer ancestry rules out membership in Haplogroup U5 or is compatible with it.)
thanks -- 189.60.63.116 ( talk) 02:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
We don't know, because the recent "information" on this is not based on a publication but entirely on a Channel 4 television program. There is nothing to report until they publish their study. To answer your question, I believe U5 is correlated with WHG, but we cannot expect any population, even a Mesolithic one, to have just one haplogroup: this would indicate a very serious population bottleneck in the recent past: so while U5 might "indicate" WHG, neither does it establish it, nor would non-U5 be sufficient to establish non-membership in WHG. Identifying "ancestry" based on haplogroups was just the best they could do back in the 1990s, but we have much better tools now, and the popular reliance on mt/Y haplogroups stands in no relation to the quality of results that can be expected in modern studies. This does not translate to, as the NYT seems to think, "10% of British people are WHG and the remaining 90% aren't WHG". This is just nonsense.
About 10% of Europeans have U5, which might be an indication that roughly 10% of European ancestry is WHG derived. In other words: I would recommend removing the entire "U5" part as a 1990s red herring. Fwiiw, U5 is more frequent (higher than 10%, but still lower than 50%) among Basques and Finns, suggesting that Neolithic and Indo-European admixture was weaker in these regions. -- dab (𒁳) 06:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
According to the article by the Natural History Museum, Cheddar Man shares only 10% DNA with modern Britons. This should be added.
I quote: "Modern-day British people share approximately 10% of their genetic ancestry with the European population to which Cheddar Man belonged, but they aren't direct descendants. Current thinking is that the Mesolithic population that Cheddar Man belonged to was mostly replaced by the farmers that migrated into Britain later." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.94.135 ( talk) 13:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
References
I noticed that Sarah Bollard the name of one of the students of Adrian Targett had been added to this article. I have removed it as I do not think it this is significant enough to add into an encyclopaedia, but if anyone knows why this should be included could you explain here?— Rod talk 11:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty definite that he was both of those, and the category Black British seems indisputable. Admittedly he's not a part of the modern population, and doesn't share culture with any modern inhabitant of the British Isles, so another subcategory might be appropriate, aboriginal black British for example. But the fact of (near) blackness and indisputable Britishness make it bizarre to exclude him. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 11:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I note the article on Black British starts with a very brief reference to Roman period, the is no reason why it should not now correctly start with Cheddar Man. Cheddar Man maybe the earliest known example, but he belongs to the Category:Black British people -- BOD -- 19:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
@Richard Keatinge: This discussion is leading nowhere. Several editors, me included, have tried to make you understand that the term Black British has a specific meaning, just like African-American has, and can not be applied to someone from 10K years ago who has only one thing in common with "Black British people", dark skin, and wasn't British since Britain as we know it didn't exist back then (it was a peninsula on a European continent that didn't look anything like Europe looks today...). It's also obvious that your addition of Category:Black British people is not supported by other editors, so why don't you just drop it? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
At this edit I have rewritten the article on the basis of the NHM's FAQ and their pre-publication paper. I have also used references in those sources. Since the FAQ includes details about the subsequent genetic inflow into the area, and possible natural selection over the last few thousand years, and since some of the blog etc. comment seems confused on the subject, I have included those details in the article. I hope that suits everyone, but if not, do discuss here. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 16:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
I would like to know what the contentions are with my edits about the genetic contributions of Neolithic and Bronze Age migrations to modern, indigenous (Anglo-Celtic), Britons in the section of this article specifically dealing with this topic? The edit summaries of the reverts from the opposing editor has not been sufficient. I specifically do not understand the opposition to using "indigenous" or "aboriginal", since that is exactly the population of what all of these studies and findings are referring to. They are not referring to foreign or foreign-descended ethnic groups or populations in Britain who only arrived in the past 100 years, but only to those of Mesolithic-Neolithic-Bronze Age ancestry - Celtic peoples and English/Anglo-Saxons; these 3 major groupings include later migrations by related northwestern European people with different frequencies and genetic mutations from the same three large groups. The Anglo-Saxons are known to have been the only migration to have substantially changed genetically regions of mainland Britain (specifically eastern England and lowland Scotland) since the Bronze Age, while the Norwegian Vikings contributed significantly in Orkney and Shetland. Both those groups are varations from a similar Mesolithic-Neolithic-Bronze Age mixture. The study I am including, specifically discusses how the genetics of modern indigenous Celtic Britons - Irish, Welsh and Scots, but also western historically Celtic regions of England like Somerset - have changed very little since the Bronze Age Gaelic Celtic migration 4,000 years ago ( Neolithic and Bronze Age migration to Ireland and establishment of the insular Atlantic genome).
On a further note, the Neolithic and Bronze Age contributions are still indigenous. For example, in the Americas, the ancestors of the modern Inuit (the Thule) have only arrived in their present range in Alaska, the Canadian Arctic and Greenland in the past 1,000 to 2,000 years. However, they are still obviously considered aboriginal to those regions and to pre-date the modern arrival of European colonists into those lands in the past 300 years. Other indigenous peoples in the Americas pre-dated their arrival by over 12,000 years. Nobody, however, questions that the Inuit are still the indigenous, aboriginal population of the Canadian Arctic and Greenland. Interestingly, the Inuit also absorbed the genetics of an older, less advanced people when they arrived 1,000 to 2,000 years ago, known as the Dorset culture.
Just as the more advanced Thule ancestors of the Inuit mix with the original Dorset culture, so did the more advanced Neolithic and Bronze Age (Celtic first, then Anglo-Saxon) settlers mix with the Mesolithic aboriginals in Britain. And just as the Inuit are still considered indigenous in the modern context, despite having ancestry from arrivals after the first inhabitants, so are the modern Mesolithic-Neolithic-Bronze Age Britons still considered indigenous. There has been very little to no genetic change to Celtic Irish, Scots or Welsh since the Bronze Age - a period of 4,000 years - and little to no change to the English and Lowland Scots since the Anglo-Saxon settlement - a period of 1,500 years.
Any claims that Celtic and Anglo-Saxon peoples of modern Britain are not 'indigenous' because of later Neolithic and Bronze Age origins of their ancestry is unfounded and unsupported. If that were the case, then the Inuit would not be indigenous/aboriginal either (they were pre-dated by the Dorset), nor the Bantu Zulu in South Africa since they only arrived in the past 1,500 years (and they were pre-dated by 100,000 years by the Khoisan), and the Indo-Aryan peoples of northern India would not be indigenous since they were pre-dated by thousands of years by the Dravidians of southern India (with remnants in the north). The Sinhalese have been in Sri Lanka for 2,500 years, but the Veddah people have been there much, much longer. But no one would deny that the Sinhalese are indigenous to Sri Lanka in comparison to the arrival of modern Arabs and Tamils in Sri Lanka, let alone others in the past 100 years.
I hope this elucidates things and stops any insane thinking certain radical left-wing liberal political agendas that somehow Britain has no indigenous ethnic groups. The Irish, Scots, Manx ( Gaels), Cornish, Welsh, English, and Orcadians/ Shetlanders 'are' the aboriginal/indigenous peoples of the British Isles, in order of time they arrived from oldest to most recent. Go to an Inuit and say he is not indigenous, or a Zulu, or a Bengali, or a Japanese people ( Yayoi arrived in Japan 4,000 years ago, but were pre-dated by the Jomon/modern Ainu) - obviously no one with any intelligence would make such a claim. Libertas et Veritas ( talk) 01:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
When I read a sentence like:
I expect the citation of a 2018 publication. Instead, we got press releases and journalism. It was highly suspicious at the time that the involved people would keep talking to the press but would not condescend to publish whatever it was they had found. This was three months ago. Where is the publication? Maybe even a preprint?
It is already extremely bad form to talk to journalists before you publish your paper, but to talk to journalists but then never publish the paper seemed inconceivable, but I couldn't find it. So I checked Barnes' homepage [4] He has three publications dated 2018, one about beavers, one about deer, and one as a co-author in a host of co-authors, on "The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe".
Where is the Cheddar Man paper? Why is Barnes all over the media touting his recent work on the Cheddar Man's genome when he didn't publish anything about it? If the study whimpered and died under peer review, would this not at least require another press relese saying "never mind"? -- dab (𒁳) 09:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the preprint. The relevant section should now be based on this.
The "public interest" appears to be entirely based on race-baiting and semantic games surrounding the term "immigrant", in my mind a clear abuse of genetics for current-day ideological purposes -- this is why I am of the opinion that no journalism should be allowed in our paleoanthropology or genetic genealogy article outside of "in popular culture" sections. -- dab (𒁳) 15:35, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Fwiiw, the debate on European skin pigmentation alleles should be delegated to light skin or genetic history of Europe. Pertinent literature is already cited at: SLC24A5#Effect_on_skin_color and SLC45A2#Function. According to this (2012), there was a "proto-Eurasian" "initial sweep" about 30 ka, shared by Western and Eastern Eurasians (this is the "dark skin" of WHG), and the European-specific "selective sweeps at SLC24A5, SLC45A2, and TYRP1 " beginning about 19 ka (during the LGM). According to this (2015), the oldest known ancient DNA with this allele dates to 13 ka and was found in the Caucasus. -- dab (𒁳) 16:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
At this diff material - though not the source refs - was removed with the comment "source retracted". Where is this retraction? Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:21, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Why is Cheddar Man's male haplogroup not known, when his entire genome was mapped? Oh and by the way - the people who left Africa 45,000 years ago were of the Black phenotype - like the Andamanese, the Semang, the Melanesians and more. Get used to it. 83.84.100.133 ( talk) 14:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello, the out of Africa theory remains a theory with no actual evidence proving it to be correct or factual.
Human remains have been found around the world pre-dating 45,000 years, in fact some over 500,000 years.
Pre humans dating back millions of years existed outside Africa.
The Africa theory is not a good example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:60E2:179B:6D02:1ED2 ( talk) 06:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Did he have dark to black skin? most likely not.
One of the leading experts who worked on the reconstruction of his face and with the genetics team states, we simply don't know his skin colour.
The Geneticist came under scrutiny after her co-worker and the global media rallied to promote this theory as a fact.
The global medias published he had blue eyes and dark skin, so was she being racist, was she lying, why was she arguing this after the world has been told he had dark skin?
Her claim was and is supported, there is no evidence what so ever the Cheddar man had dark to black skin.
Modern politics was blamed. Modern beliefs on equality and diversity have been common in all aspects of science.
There is a very clear promotion of a theory we all came from Africa or Asia.
For example, the out if Africa (theory) remains a belief, there is no evidence to support it as factual, and there is actually a lot of evidence showing humans did not all come from Africa.
Yet, the oldest pre-human with human DNA was found in Europe, this theory shines a light on pre-human migration, how humans evolved outside Africa and migrated into Africa.
What some academics have said about the modern push, reverse racism, racist science. It's down to opinion, however, Genetics experts have said they are unhappy with the statement the Cheddar man had dark skin with the lack of evidence, that and the fact no other relatives have been found, he was one and one only and the possibility of the Cheddar man being a migrant was still possible meaning he could have been born abroad.
There seems to be a culture growing within science to prove all of the earth was African, dark-skinned or ethnic prior Celt ancestry, however, there is no evidence, only chosen theories.
What we have is another theory, one that many including academics say has been debunked.
The Cheddar man's skin colour is unknown to this day.
2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:60E2:179B:6D02:1ED2 ( talk) 06:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Sreader.
Let's reach a solution on the presentation of the controversies over Brace 2018, its interpretation in the previous version of the article, and the paper's stance on "dark to very dark skin" among other findings. Many of the assertions in the previous version are not supported by the sources (e.g Brown eyes originating ) and as well as a lack of detail in the contrary stances, there are general wording issues. But I would be happy to work to reach a neutral and comprehensive layout for the page. PLease suggest below any rewording or refocuses, or suggestion to remove or change any of my recent edits. I have endeavoured to represent the sources presented but if anyone believes I have overstepped then you are welcome to say where and how. Vaurnheart ( talk) 15:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
In reply to the above statement, the New scientist Article is the only source. Here are a few other sources below, not limited to. Sources:
- The Daily Mail - Stating Scientists around the world have stated its impossible to determine skin colour. The group who predicted the colour of skin are not the only scientists on earth, or professionals nor are they regarded as the best.
- Indiana University - We do not know his skin colour.
- Natural History Museum - We predicted his skin colour. (Prediction alone is not basis for factual statements), example: The news today predicts sun with light showers, outcome = No sun or rain, just clouds.
- Colin Barras, Human Origins, Scientist & Writer - Our ancestors who reached the UK 30.000 years ago had plenty of time to evolve white skin.
- World Press - The statement (The first Britons were black) is false and incorrectly thrown around as we have human remains that are 3000 to 4000 years older than the Cheddar Man that DOES NOT share his DNA and has no indication of having dark to black skin.
Wikipedia - The oldest human remains found in the UK are around 500.000 years old, (no evidence of dark to black skin), Neanderthals dating to around 400,000, Oxford University & British Museum press, European Journal of Genetics.
The statement (The First Britons) had dark to black skin is evidence of modern discrimination & potential scientific racism within modern science, or what is being known as reverse-racism based on the (fact) the first humans in the UK dated back hundreds of thousands of years before the Cheddar Man and the (fact) he was one in a kind, just one male with no other kin in the entire UK, we have just one man who may have been dark to black skinned which is not sufficient evidence to prove the first the first Britons as a whole people had dark to Black skin.
The oldest pre-human remains on earth have been discovered in Europe, this alone can prove the Out of Africa theory as false, yet the discovery of one set of remains does not qualify the theory wrong, even if they are older than the remains found in Africa.
It is a prediction that the Cheddar Man may have had dark to black skin, there is no concrete evidence however to prove such a thing. The source supplied was pone of the leading Scientists on the examining team, you cannot get a better source than the scientist who actually studied the DNA.
The fact remains - Did the Cheddar man have dark to black skin, we do not know and there is no evidence of such. 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:C425:2DFE:927B:3FFF ( talk) 11:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Sreader.
I'm also concerned about your historical map of skin color,which you describe as being "based on the scientific consensus at the time of creation". It appears to be based on rather a lot of original research, in particular discounting the evidence - which we agree is imperfect - for darker skin color among Western Hunter Gatherers in general and Cheddar Man in particular. By way of support for this comment, I note that the map is derived from https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0000027 A traditional skin color map based on the data of Biasutti. Reproduced from http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/ with permission from Dennis O'Neil." - which isn't available, and seems to be referenced to Relethford 1998, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1096-8644(199712)104:4%3C449::AID-AJPA2%3E3.0.CO;2-N, which in turn doesn't seem to support any historical change element and was published too long ago to use any of the more recent genetic data. The reference to Biasutti as the source of the original data appears to refer to Renato Biasutti, who died in 1965 and as far as I can see made no attempt to do much beyond documenting characteristics of then-living populations.
Additional references include "Development of paler skin genes SLC24A5 and SLC45A2-F374 from Scandinavia: Günther T, Malmström H, Svensson EM, Omrak A, Sánchez-Quinto F, Kılınç GM, et al. (2018) Population genomics of Mesolithic Scandinavia: Investigating early postglacial migration routes and high-latitude adaptation. PLoS Biol 16(1): e2003703. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003703 - which is relevant to skin color in Mesolithic Sweden but not in the British Isles. And "Convergent development of light skin among Palaeolithic East Asians and the later development of darker skin gene variations of MFSD12 among Native Americans: Kaustubh Adhikari, et al. A GWAS in Latin Americans highlights the convergent evolution of lighter skin pigmentation in Eurasia. Nature Communications, 2019; 10 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-08147-0" again doesn't speak to the characteristics of the Western Hunter Gatherer population.
I commend your industry in generating this file, and some of it may be arguable, but overall it is original research and it also offers spurious accuracy. I feel that your file should not be used in its current form anywhere on Wikipedia, and I will ask on its talk page for its withdrawal until suitably amended. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 13:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)