Posted on 12/24/2001 4:51:53 AM PST by blam
Britons '200,000 years earlier than first thought'
Man could have settled in Britain up to 200,000 years earlier than previously thought, according to new studies.
Prehistorians had thought the predecessors of modern humans began living in Britain between 450,000 and 500,000 years ago.
But recent discoveries in eastern and south western England suggest that is wrong, according to an article in the magazine New Scientist.
Researchers working in conjunction with the Natural History Museum are basing their new theories on analysis of a flint axe and other tools found on the East Anglian coast and investigation of butchery marks on a deer bone found in Somerset.
Experts think that some of these finds were in sediments that could date back 700,000 years.
Museum researchers, who have not revealed the exact locations of the discoveries, are carrying out further checks, adds the article.
Story filed: 15:52 Friday 21st December 2001
:’) Yeah, RW hasn’t been online in, well, probably years.
Yup. That sure was a surprise. I learned that from the 12 marker test through my mother.
I recently completed a 37 marker test and it's leading to some connection to the Lumbee Indians on my dad's side.. I never thought bright blue eyes and blonde hair would lead there....even so, I anxiously await my casino 'cut'.
I've always teased him as a 'stay-at-home' boy.
My dad's mother, Mrs Smith, is related to him with the same DNA, U5a. See here.
I miss him. He told me he had high cholesterol and heart problems....then one day, he's gone.
RIP RW.
I can prove Anglo Norman ancestry, triple checked, back to 1070, but where does North Africa come in?
There was a Moorish presence in Spain for about 800 years, and for a while it leaked over the Pyrenees into France until Charles Martel kicked them out.
The Vikings sold their services as warriors to Byzantium for a while, so there could be a Middle Eastern connection to North Africa. Not too far from Byzantium was Baghdad, which had the leading university in the Middle East. Once upon a time, the Muslims actually had a respect for learning.
Could be, but when you start wandering across the Channel I would get into a non document wasteland, something I avoided.
I rely on a triple check on records.
I looked at his last post and maybe it was a new years resolution to keep off line. I’m staying positive!
It is my opinion that North Africa, north of the Sahara was White during the ice age. For example, when the Greeks or who-ever it was, discovered the Canary Islands, they described Nordic type people living there. In fact, the Greeks and then the Romans went there and made slaves of these people...usually sex slaves because light skin/blonde hair was favored.
Anyway, did the White people in North Africa during the Ice Age become the Berbers(?) with the mixing of Blacks from the south?
Also, king Tut has R1b DNA.
I read about Tut, so it could very well be. Out of curiosity have you heard of a DNA thingy that is particular to people from Central England that makes them readily identifiable.
I have seen it mentioned but can’t find any info. You have been into this a lot longer than I, can you give some direction?
Yes. In Stephen Oppenheimer's book, Origins Of The British, he describes such findings during his DNA studies for this book. Some are real interesting too. He poses a probable explanation for most but, some are complete mysteries.
He points out that when a DNA type arrives in an area that it survives and stays there for thousands of years. He could not find any DNA markers to identify the Picts...they must have been a cultural difference only.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks blam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.