Culture Stonehenge: DNA reveals it was built by people from Anatolia in 4000BC - Turks built Stonehenge take that little Englanders!

Skyclaw

British Wanker
kiwifarms.net
BBC Article said:
Stonehenge: DNA reveals origin of builders
By Paul RinconScience editor, BBC News website
  • 7 hours ago

Stonehenge
Image captionConstruction on Stonehenge probably began about 3,000BC
The ancestors of the people who built Stonehenge travelled west across the Mediterranean before reaching Britain, a study has shown.
Researchers in London compared DNA extracted from Neolithic human remains found in Britain with that of people alive at the same time in Europe.

The Neolithic inhabitants appear to have travelled from Anatolia (modern Turkey) to Iberia before winding their way north.
They reached Britain in about 4,000BC.

Details have been published in the journal Nature Ecology & Evolution.
The migration to Britain was just one part of a general, massive expansion of people out of Anatolia in 6,000BC that introduced farming to Europe.
Before that, Europe was populated by small, travelling groups which hunted animals and gathered wild plants and shellfish.

One group of early farmers followed the river Danube up into Central Europe, but another group travelled west across the Mediterranean.
DNA reveals that Neolithic Britons were largely descended from groups who took the Mediterranean route, either hugging the coast or hopping from island-to-island on boats.
Whitehawk Woman
Image copyrightROYAL PAVILION & MUSEUM, BRIGHTONImage captionA facial reconstruction of Whitehawk Woman, a 5,600-year-old Neolithic woman from Sussex. The reconstruction is on show at the Royal Pavilion & Museum in Brighton
When the researchers analysed the DNA of early British farmers, they found they most closely resembled Neolithic people from Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal). These Iberian farmers were descended from people who had journeyed across the Mediterranean.

From Iberia, or somewhere close, the Mediterranean farmers travelled north through France. They might have entered Britain from the west, through Wales or south-west England. Indeed, radiocarbon dates suggest that Neolithic people arrived marginally earlier in the west, but this remains a topic for future work.

In addition to farming, the Neolithic migrants to Britain appear to have introduced the tradition of building monuments using large stones known as megaliths. Stonehenge in Wiltshire was part of this tradition.

Although Britain was inhabited by groups of "western hunter-gatherers" when the farmers arrived in about 4,000BC, DNA shows that the two groups did not mix very much at all.
The British hunter-gatherers were almost completely replaced by the Neolithic farmers, apart from one group in western Scotland, where the Neolithic inhabitants had elevated local ancestry. This could have come down to the farmer groups simply having greater numbers.

"We don't find any detectable evidence at all for the local British western hunter-gatherer ancestry in the Neolithic farmers after they arrive," said co-author Dr Tom Booth, a specialist in ancient DNA from the Natural History Museum in London.

"That doesn't mean they don't mix at all, it just means that maybe their population sizes were too small to have left any kind of genetic legacy."
Co-author Professor Mark Thomas, from UCL, said he also favoured "a numbers game explanation".
Cheddar Man reconstruction
Image copyrightCHANNEL 4/PLIMSOLL PRODUCTIONSImage captionA reconstruction of Cheddar Man. As with other Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, DNA results suggest he had dark skin and blue or green eyes
Professor Thomas said the Neolithic farmers had probably had to adapt their practices to different climatic conditions as they moved across Europe. But by the time they reached Britain they were already "tooled up" and well-prepared for growing crops in a north-west European climate.

The study also analysed DNA from these British hunter-gatherers. One of the skeletons analysed was that of Cheddar Man, whose skeletal remains have been dated to 7,100BC.
He was the subject of a reconstruction unveiled at the Natural History Museum last year. DNA suggests that, like most other European hunter-gatherers of the time, he had dark skin combined with blue eyes.

Genetic analysis shows that the Neolithic farmers, by contrast, were paler-skinned with brown eyes and black or dark-brown hair.
Towards the end of the Neolithic, in about 2,450BC, the descendents of the first farmers were themselves almost entirely replaced when a new population - called the Bell Beaker people - migrated from mainland Europe. So Britain saw two extreme genetic shifts in the space of a few thousand years.

Prof Thomas said that this later event happened after the Neolithic population had been in decline for some time, both in Britain and across Europe. He cautioned against simplistic explanations invoking conflict, and said the shifts ultimately came down to "economic" factors, about which lifestyles were best suited to exploit the landscape.

Dr Booth explained: "It's difficult to see whether the two [genetic shifts] could have anything in common - they're two very different kinds of change. There's speculation that they're to some extent population collapses. But the reasons suggested for those two collapses are different, so it could just be coincidence."
Follow Paul on Twitter.
This is the first thread i'm actually making so its shit and probably fucked up please forgive me assholes.

TL;DR People from the region now known as Turkey sailed to Britain and built Stonehenge therefore British people can no longer claim it as part of our culture just like how Americans can't have the Statue of Liberty as part of their culture since the bloody French made it.

There's some nice tweets from mainly remainers gloating and i would link them if i could figure out how without breaking the thread...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Skyclaw

British Wanker
kiwifarms.net
So they built Stonehenge and then buggered off back to Turkey? Or they built Stonehenge and then got smashed by the Poms who kept it for themselves?
They settled here a few generations before Stonehenge was built so they are essentially the ancestors of the Britons who were then subjucated by Rome and became Romano-British, then subjucated by the Saxons and became Anglo-Saxons then subjucated by the Normans and we basically became French.
 

PS1gamenwatch

kiwifarms.net
Don't we already know humans originated in Africa and migrated everywhere?
Also Celts have always been described as people with dark hair.
According to these recent discoveries, humans originated from the Philippines:


New archaeological evidence shows that humans were living in the Philippines by 709,000 years ago – hundreds of thousands of years earlier than previously thought.

Stone artefacts were found by an international team of researchers, including Dr. Gerrit "Gert" van den Bergh, from University of Wollongong's Centre for Archaeological Science, at an excavation at Kalinga on Luzon, the largest and most northerly island in the Philippines. Their findings are published in the prestigious science journal Nature.

Along with an almost complete rhinoceros skeleton, showing clear signs of having been butchered, the team unearthed 57 stone tools.

These stone artefacts consist of 49 sharp-edge flakes, six cores (flaked stones used as the source material for the flakes) and two possible hammer stones. Several of the rhino bones had cut marks and the left and right humerus bones showed signs of being hit with hammer stones, possibly to gain access to the marrow.

Other fossils found at the site included stegodon (a relative of the elephant), Philippine brown deer, freshwater turtle and monitor lizard remains.

The fossils and stone tools were found in a clay bed dated to between 777,000 and 631,000 years ago. This conclusion was reached by combining several dating methods (including Electron Spin Resonance, argon dating and uranium series dating), confirming that the butchering of the rhino took place around 700,000 years ago.

The find radically changes our understanding of hominin colonisation of the Philippines; the earliest evidence of hominins in the area prior to this research was a small foot bone found in nearby Callao Cave and dated to 67,000 years ago.

It also calls for a rethink of how early hominins (all human species closely related to or directly ancestral to modern humans) spread throughout the islands of South East Asia. The paper's authors argue that the find suggests the dispersal of premodern hominins through the region took place several times, and that the Philippines may have played a central role.

Dr. van den Bergh, an Australian Research Council Future Fellow, said it was most likely that these early humans spread through Island South East Asia from north to south – with Luzon as one of the stepping stones – following the ocean currents south and eventually reaching Flores to give rise to the ancestral population that led to Homo floresiensis (commonly known as the 'Hobbit').

"Our hypothesis is that the 'Hobbit' ancestors came from the north, rather than travelling eastward through Java and Bali," he said.

Until recently, it was believed Luzon and the other islands of Wallacea (those islands east of the Wallace Line, separated from the rest of Asia and from Australia by deep water) could not have been reached by premodern hominins as it was assumed they didn't have boats (islands west of the Wallace Line were joined to the mainland when sea levels were lower).

However, the discovery of the 'Hobbit' fossils on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003 and more recent discoveries on neighbouring Sulawesi show that hominins were in Wallacea from very early on. Recently uncovered evidence shows the Hobbit's ancestors were on Flores by 700,000 years ago, around the same time hominins were present on Luzon.

Dr. van den Bergh, who is a palaeontologist as well as a sedimentologist (his analysis of the geological layering of the site was one of the methods used to date the artefacts found at Kalinga), said the dispersal of fauna through the Wallacean islands supports the theory of hominin colonisation from the north.

"If you look at the fossil and recent faunas you see that there is an impoverishment as you go from north to south," he said. "On Luzon you find fossils of stegodons, elephants, giant rats, rhino, deer, large reptiles and a type of water buffalo. On Sulawesi, the fossil fauna is already impoverished; there's no evidence of rhinos or deer ever entering there. Then on Flores, you only had stegodons, Komodo dragons, humans and giant rats, that's all.

"If animals did reach these islands by chance, by entering the sea and following the currents south, then you would expect the further south you go the fewer species you would find – and that's what we see."

While it's possible, if unlikely, that the first human colonisers of the Philippines were able to construct simple rafts, Dr. van den Bergh believes they more likely arrived by accident.

"They may have been caught in a tsunami and carried out to sea—those kinds of freak, random events are probably responsible for these movements of humans and animals. This region is tectonically active so tsunamis are common and there are big ones every hundred years or so," he said.

"After the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami people were picked out of the sea 60 kilometres from the coast a week or so later, including a pregnant woman. They survived for eight days just by drinking rainwater. Something similar could have happened in the distant past. Provided that such events might have occurred over and over again, the chance that once a small group made the unintentional crossing to another island on a natural raft is there."

Aside from the fact they made stone tools, we know very little about the people who butchered the rhino at Kalinga. Dr. van den Bergh thinks they were probably closely related to Homo erectus, and most likely the ancestors of the human found in Callao Cave – modern humans aren't believed to have arrived in the Philippines until around 50,000 years ago.

This discovery is likely to lead to efforts to find even earlier archaeological evidence as well as to fill in the blanks between then and now.

"There's a lot of focus again in the islands of South East Asia because they are places where you find natural experiments in hominin evolution. That's what makes Flores unique, and now Luzon is another place we can start looking for fossil evidence," Dr. van den Bergh said.

"On Flores, we're pretty certain they arrived about 1 million years ago based on stone tool evidence, but we don't know when hominins first arrived on Luzon. Now we can go looking in older strata and see if we can find more artefacts, or even better, fossil evidence."

'Earliest known hominin activity in the Philippines by 709 thousand years ago' is published in Nature on 2 May 2018.

Ancient Bones And Teeth Found In A Philippine Cave May Rewrite Human History





Archaeologist Armand Salvador Mijares was digging in this cave on Luzon island in the Philippines in 2007 when he turned up an ancient toe bone that wasn't quite like a modern human's.
Callao Cave Archaeology Project
An unusual species of human apparently lived on the island of Luzon in the Philippines as recently as 50,000 years ago. Based on teeth and bones found there, scientists suspect that these early humans probably stood less than 4 feet tall and had several apelike features. Yet, the researchers say, the bones are distinctly human — from a previously undiscovered species.
The first clue was a bone that surfaced in 2007. Archaeologist Armand Salvador Mijares was digging in a cave on the island of Luzon and found a toe bone. He says it didn't look like a modern human bone. "There's something peculiar with this bone," he recalls thinking. But one bone wasn't enough to say for sure who or what it belonged to.


Enlarge this image
The pronounced curve of this toe bone — the proximal phalanx — from a specimen of Homo luzonensis, an early human found in a Philippine cave, looks more like it came from tree-climbing Australopithecus than from a modern human, scientists say.
Callao Cave Archaeology Project
Mijares, who's with the University of the Philippines, was part of a team looking for bones of early humans. They kept digging for four more years. In 2011, they hit pay dirt — more toe bones, as well as finger bones, part of a thigh bone and seven teeth. And none looked like it belonged to modern humans. "We agreed that this could probably be a new species," Mijares says.
Discovering a new species of ancient human is a career-maker in anthropology — or career-breaker, if you're wrong. So the team spent another eight years studying the bones and teeth. They now conclude that the skeletal fragments are from three individuals who lived sometime between 50,000 and 67,000 years ago. Writing this weekin the journal Nature, the scientists call them Homo luzonensis, after the island.

And, says paleoanthropologist Shara Bailey of New York University, these three are pretty unusual.
"We tend to define species based on unique combinations of traits," Bailey says, "and that seems to be what's going on here." She says it's "super-surprising" how the teeth and bones exhibit some "very primitive traits" along with modern ones.
For example, one toe bone is more curved than modern human toe bones. In fact, it looks just like the toe of a tree-climbing, ape-like creature, Australopithecus,that lived millions of years ago — well before the first humans evolved.
Even the mouth combines an unusual mix of past and present: Some of the teeth look much like ours, while others are more like the teeth of ancestors that lived millions of years ago.
Bailey calls the find a "mosaic" species: "I think it just opens up so many new questions," she says. "It's exciting."
One question is: Were these creatures related to the Hobbits (no, not the movie characters).
"Hobbit" is the widely used nickname for another tiny, primitive human species that lived on an Indonesian island from about 100,000 years ago until 50,000 years ago. More formally called Homo floresiensis, the Hobbits were discovered 15 years ago. They, too, had a surprising mix of primitive and humanlike bones and teeth.


Enlarge this image
Several teeth and a few bones may be all that remain of a diminutive species of early human who lived on the island of Luzon prior to 50,000 years ago.
Callao Cave Archaeology Project
Paleoanthropologist Matt Tocheri at Lakehead University in Canada is an expert on the Hobbits. "Here we are not that much later, and now we've got a similar thing popping up on an island in the Philippines," Tocheri says. "They're living out on these oceanic islands — and they're essentially there at the same time [as] our species is, you know, conquering the world."
With two puzzling species in Southeast Asia, scientists are also wondering what it tells us about the migration of human ancestors out of Africa.
The standard view holds that the first species of human to leave Africa was a large-bodied, fairly big-brained group called Homo erectus,almost 2 million years ago. Homo erectus spread through Asia and Europe.
One possible explanation for the existence of Homo luzonensis is that a population of Homo erectus got to the Philippines long ago — maybe hundreds of thousands of years ago — and stayed put. As they evolved, some of their physical traits became more like those of modern humans — some of the teeth, for example. But other traits, like toes, did not evolve or may even have regressed to a more primitive form.
That's the view of Florent Détroit, a paleoanthropologist at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris and one of the discoverers of the new species. He says evolution plays some unusual tricks, especially on organisms that live in isolation.
"This is yet another piece of evidence to show that the features [of the body] definitely do not evolve at the same speed," Détroit says, "especially in different species in different geographical places."
But Tocheri says there may be another explanation: a different migration out of Africa, not by Homo erectus but by some other more apelike species that settled in remote parts of Asia.
"That's where it gets exciting," Tocheri says. "Because, if it's true that the other species of early Homo also made it out [of Africa], it means that what we're finding in Asia is even more complex and more interesting than we ever dreamed of."
With two oddball species of early human turning up in the past two decades, paleontologists are wondering what the findings mean for the history of humanity.
"The evolution of Homo is getting weirder and weirder," says Rick Potts, head of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. "Species are fluid entities, which makes them highly malleable, subject to change," he says.
These discoveries, Potts says, "are going to play havoc with any easy classification" of our ancestors and with the notion that there was a fairly orderly progression from primitive to more "modern" traits.
What is becoming clearer, anthropologists say, is that early humans came in a lot more shapes and sizes than scientists once thought.
But it still supports that earlier humans were dark, since the earlier Filipinos were these people:



 

Your Weird Fetish

Intersectional fetishist
kiwifarms.net
POPULATION GENETICS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY

edit: Seriously guys, most modern Britons don't have a significant percentage of ancestry from either group discussed in OP's article (except maybe for that one group in Ireland that has the same genetic heritage as Basques) and Turks have even less to do with this. Humans move around a shitload. They don't just stay in one place for tens of thousands of years to conveniently line up with modern concepts of ethnicity. Everyone twitter exceptional individuals are talking about is multiple genocides and population collapses plus many millenia removed from everyone involved. Their real ancestors were fucking around in Ukraine (or maybe Siberia for the Turks) at the point in history Stone Henge was being assembled.
 
Last edited:

SigSauer

kiwifarms.net


This is the first thread i'm actually making so its shit and probably fucked up please forgive me assholes.

TL;DR People from the region now known as Turkey sailed to Britain and built Stonehenge therefore British people can no longer claim it as part of our culture just like how Americans can't have the Statue of Liberty as part of their culture since the bloody French made it.

There's some nice tweets from mainly remainers gloating and i would link them if i could figure out how without breaking the thread...

Even if that were true, Anatolia was inhabited by the Greeks at the time, so Stonehenge would’ve still been a white achievement even if this version were true.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino