logo
Ancient Britons who built Stonehenge had dark skin, scientists reveal

Ancient Britons who built Stonehenge had dark skin, scientists reveal

Independent04-03-2025

The majority of Europeans living 5,000 years ago, including those who built Stonehenge, may have had dark skin, a new study suggests.
It was already believed that Britain's early inhabitants, such as Cheddar Man, who lived 10,000 years ago, had dark skin and blue eyes before paler skin tones then emerged as a dominant trait years later.
But now researchers the University of Ferrara in Italy say this change did not happen until centuries later than previously thought.
Scientists analysed data from 348 genomes — the entire set of DNA instructions — from human remains of individuals who lived between 45,00 and 1,700 years ago.
It was calculated that the vast majority (92 per cent) of those living in Europe in the Paleolithic period of the Stone Age, between 13,000 and 35,000 years ago, had dark skin and 8 per cent had 'intermediate' skin tones. However, the study suggests none had pale skin.
This remained the norm for thousands of years, with DNA from the Iron Age, between 1,700 and 3,000 years ago, still showing 55 per cent of people had dark skin and 27 per cent had intermediate skin. They also found just 18 per cent had pale skin.
There are about 26 genes associated with the production of melanin, which produces darker skin, and two specific types, eumelanin and pheomelanin, determine skin colour, hair and eye colour.
Because skin and hair are not preserved in fossils, experts used the genetic code from human remains and compared it to data from modern Europeans, to predict the skin, hair and eye colour of ancient people.
Scientists know that modern humans migrated from Africa to Europe and Asia about 60,000 to 70,000 years ago. As humans migrated into regions with lower ultraviolet (UV) radiation light, pigmentation became more common.
As a result, these humans evolved to become lighter-skinned to adapt to allow more UV light to penetrate their skin, helping their bodies to produce vitamin D — which is vital for maintaining healthy bones and muscle.
In comparison, darker skin contains more brown and black pigments than pale skin is better at protecting against UV damage from sunlight.
However, for decades scientists assumed humans rapidly developed lighter skin tones after migrating from Africa, but this latest research suggests it far more gradual and Britons who built Stonehenge were likely to have had dark features, Silvia Ghirotto, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Ferrara in Italy explained.
The study notes: 'By a probabilistic approach, we showed that eye, hair and skin colour changed substantially through time in Eurasia.
'It was reasonable to imagine that the first hunting-gathering settlers, who came from warmer climates, had mostly dark pigmentation.
'What was less expected was the long persistence of their phenotypes.'
It added: 'Things changed afterwards, but very slowly, so that only in the Iron Age did the frequency of light skins equal that of dark skins; during much of prehistory, most Europeans were dark-skinned.'
The study has been published on the pre-print server bioRxiv, meaning it's yet to be peer-reviewed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

I'm a dermatologist - there's two little-known signs of skin cancer almost everyone misses
I'm a dermatologist - there's two little-known signs of skin cancer almost everyone misses

Daily Mail​

time4 days ago

  • Daily Mail​

I'm a dermatologist - there's two little-known signs of skin cancer almost everyone misses

Don't ignore a patch of itchy skin that simply won't heal—it could be skin cancer. It's one of two common niggles, along with a pimple that doesn't go away, that consultant dermatologist Dr Fatima Awdeh has identified as a possible sign of the disease, including deadly melanoma. In a new video posted to the Instagram page of her dermatology clinic, Riverside Skin and Laser Clinic, the Essex-based medic outlined little-known skin problems that set off alarm bells. Firstly, she revealed a new brown streak under a fingernail makes her worry about melanoma—which kills around 2,300 people in the UK every year. This is a sign of a rare type of the disease called subungual melanoma, which presents as discoloration underneath the nail that looks like a bruise. A second sign that patients are rarely aware of, she said, is a patch of eczema that does not heal. This could be a sign of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), the second most common skin cancer, with more than 25,000 people in the UK diagnosed with the condition every year. While it is highly survivable in early stages, when spotted late it can spread to other areas of the body, making it more difficult to treat. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Riverside Skin & Laser Clinic (@riversideskinlaserclinic) While many serious skin cancers begin in moles, experts have urged the public to look out for other changes that don't involve the traditional raised, coloured spot. For instance, Dr Awdeh said an unhealed spot could be a basal cell carcinoma (BCC), a slow growing cancer that is the most common skin cancer in the UK. While BCCs do not usually spread throughout the body, and are almost always cured, treating them can involve removing large chunks of skin, leaving patients with disfiguring scars. Some of these growths appear as flat, red, scaly marks or have a pearl-like rim. Many become ulcerated, while others are lumpy with shiny nodules. In the caption, Dr Awdeh wrote: 'Signs of skin cancer can include new growths or changes in existing ones, such as moles or patches of skin, that are new, changing, or growing. Melanoma is the UK's fifth most common cancer, as well as the deadliest type of skin cancer, resulting in 2,000 deaths a year. The most common sign of this lethal type is a mole that grows, bleeds or changes colour. In order to reduce the risk of all types of skin cancer, the NHS recommends that Britons wear sunscreen when spending time in the sun, regardless of the temperature. Melanoma is caused by cellular damage from UV and UVB rays from the sun and tanning beds, but those with a family history of the disease are at greater risk. Awareness of this type of cancer is increasing, partly spurred on by celebrities including Hugh Jackman, 56, Katherine Ryan, 41, Khloe Kardashian, 40, and Molly-Mae Hague, 25 openly sharing their diagnoses. A common misconception is that melanoma solely affects the skin on the face, body, and limbs, but it can also develop on other areas vulnerable to sun damage — the mouth, scalp, nail beds, soles of the feet, palm of the hands and fingers. The health service also recommends, during spring and summer, that people spend time in the shade between 11am and 3pm, when the sun is at its strongest.

UK workers skipping lunch as 'too much work to do' costing them £1,000 per year
UK workers skipping lunch as 'too much work to do' costing them £1,000 per year

North Wales Live

time4 days ago

  • North Wales Live

UK workers skipping lunch as 'too much work to do' costing them £1,000 per year

Hardworking Britons are, in effect, 'giving away' as much as £29 billion in labour every year simply by not taking full advantage of their lunchtime breaks. A study of 2,000 employees holding either full-time or part-time positions has shown that those who do take a break for lunch generally use just 70 per cent of the time they're given, and those who don't take the entire break often skip it altogether twice a week. For someone working full-time, with an average of 233 workdays in a year and the average full-time salary taken into account, this tallies up to an astonishing £1,012 worth of time each person annually misses out on. Almost 50 per cent confess that it's usually too much work that prevents them from stepping away, whilst others feel pressured to get back to work or see no point when there's barely enough time to go anywhere during their break. More than one-third consider their lunchtime pauses 'too brief', reporting an average length of only 39 minutes per day to refresh themselves. In an effort to restore the sanctity of lunch hours for the British public, St Pierre has established a 'respect zone' in London's Potter's Field Park – an ode to the preciousness of the midday interlude, calling upon Londoners to engage in dining 'avec respect'. The special area intended to transport office workers to Paris, inviting them to follow the French example of enjoying unhurried and relaxed mealtimes. A spokesperson from St Pierre remarked: "Lunchbreaks shouldn't be a luxury." They added: "Even though life is busy and work is important, we need to remember to take time out for ourselves to really get that break we need – and go back to work energised, refreshed, and satisfied by a delicious meal we were able to properly savour." A fifth of Brits feel that lunchtime rituals are not given the respect they deserve, particularly when compared to European neighbours such as Spain, Italy, and France who are seen as more appreciative of their midday meals. Yet, even those who manage to set aside time for lunch often end up multitasking with work-related activities like checking emails or answering calls. For those accustomed to working through their lunch hour, over 20 per cent admit it would be difficult to alter this routine even if they had the chance. This admission comes despite 37 per cent acknowledging that regularly skipping lunch breaks can lead to burnout and negatively impact work performance. St. Pierre's spokesperson added: "It's a sad state of affairs that our main break during a long day of work isn't really being treated as one – and that we can't seem to switch off even when given permission. "There's something to be learned from the French here – taking that moment to really unwind and enjoy a delicious meal, without thinking about other things. We're also missing a prime opportunity in our everyday lives to connect with other people over good food and conversation."

UK workers skipping lunch as 'too much work to do' costing them £1,000 per year
UK workers skipping lunch as 'too much work to do' costing them £1,000 per year

Wales Online

time4 days ago

  • Wales Online

UK workers skipping lunch as 'too much work to do' costing them £1,000 per year

UK workers skipping lunch as 'too much work to do' costing them £1,000 per year A study of 2,000 adults in full or part-time work found over half of those who do take a lunch break typically only use 70 per cent of their allocated time St Pierre launches 'No Tech Zone' Hardworking Britons are, in effect, 'giving away' as much as £29 billion in labour every year simply by not taking full advantage of their lunchtime breaks. A study of 2,000 employees holding either full-time or part-time positions has shown that those who do take a break for lunch generally use just 70 per cent of the time they're given, and those who don't take the entire break often skip it altogether twice a week. ‌ For someone working full-time, with an average of 233 workdays in a year and the average full-time salary taken into account, this tallies up to an astonishing £1,012 worth of time each person annually misses out on. ‌ Almost 50 per cent confess that it's usually too much work that prevents them from stepping away, whilst others feel pressured to get back to work or see no point when there's barely enough time to go anywhere during their break. More than one-third consider their lunchtime pauses 'too brief', reporting an average length of only 39 minutes per day to refresh themselves. In an effort to restore the sanctity of lunch hours for the British public, St Pierre has established a 'respect zone' in London's Potter's Field Park – an ode to the preciousness of the midday interlude, calling upon Londoners to engage in dining 'avec respect'. Article continues below St Pierre launched 'The Respect Zone' - a Parisian themed pop-up near Tower Bridge (Image: PinPep ) The special area intended to transport office workers to Paris, inviting them to follow the French example of enjoying unhurried and relaxed mealtimes. A spokesperson from St Pierre remarked: "Lunchbreaks shouldn't be a luxury." ‌ They added: "Even though life is busy and work is important, we need to remember to take time out for ourselves to really get that break we need – and go back to work energised, refreshed, and satisfied by a delicious meal we were able to properly savour." A fifth of Brits feel that lunchtime rituals are not given the respect they deserve, particularly when compared to European neighbours such as Spain, Italy, and France who are seen as more appreciative of their midday meals. Some Brits skip their lunch break entirely twice a week (Image: PinPep ) ‌ Yet, even those who manage to set aside time for lunch often end up multitasking with work-related activities like checking emails or answering calls. For those accustomed to working through their lunch hour, over 20 per cent admit it would be difficult to alter this routine even if they had the chance. This admission comes despite 37 per cent acknowledging that regularly skipping lunch breaks can lead to burnout and negatively impact work performance. Article continues below St. Pierre's spokesperson added: "It's a sad state of affairs that our main break during a long day of work isn't really being treated as one – and that we can't seem to switch off even when given permission. "There's something to be learned from the French here – taking that moment to really unwind and enjoy a delicious meal, without thinking about other things. We're also missing a prime opportunity in our everyday lives to connect with other people over good food and conversation."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store