UK Woman recognized as ‘first black Briton’ by BBC was actually white - DNA analysis proves Beachy Head woman was light-eyed blonde

  • Twórca wątku Twórca wątku gernig
  • Data rozpoczęcia Data rozpoczęcia

‘First black Briton’ honoured by BBC was actually white Telegraph/Archive.is

17 December 2025 2:08pm GMT - Sarah Knapton

The “first black Briton” honoured by BBC was actually white, a new genetic study has shown.

In 2016, the series Black and British: A Forgotten History, suggested that the Roman skeleton of a woman found at Beachy Head was from sub-Saharan Africa.

A plaque was erected to commemorate her heritage, which was later removed when a study suggested the woman was more likely to be from Cyprus, with a Mediterranean complexion. The original plaque was removed in 2022
1765992195193.png

Now a new DNA analysis of the skeleton by scientists at the Natural History Museum has shown that the woman originated from southern England and was white, with blonde hair and light eyes.

Dr William Marsh, who carried out the genetic study, said, “By using state of the art DNA techniques we were able to resolve the origins of this individual. We show she carries genetic ancestry that is most similar to other individuals from the local population of Roman-era Britain.”

The claim about the skeleton’s African origins was made in Prof David Olusoga’s documentary series, which told the story of the “enduring relationship between Britain and people whose origins lie in Africa”.

In episode one, the Beachy Head woman was presented as “sub-Saharan African in origin”, and the programme featured a reconstruction of her features, with dark skin, hair and eyes.

In the programme, Prof Olusoga remarked that “she’s a black Briton”, while Jo Seaman, an expert archaeologist, explained that her African origins and the age of her remains were likely to have made her the “earliest black Briton”.

1765992306686.png
The BBC programme presented the Beachy Head woman as ‘sub-Saharan African in origin’

However, in 2017 an initial genetic study suggested she came from the Mediterranean, possibly Cyprus, rather than Africa. In light of the research, the plaque was removed in 2022.

The Roman-era skeleton is thought to have been discovered in the 1950s, although no details of an excavation have ever been found. The remains were rediscovered in a box in the collections of Eastbourne Town Hall in 2012, with a label suggesting that they had been found at Beachy Head.

Now it has been confirmed that the woman descended from the local British population of Roman-era southern England. Radiocarbon dating showed she died between 129 and 311AD, corresponding to the Roman occupation of Britain.

Analysis of her skeletal remains suggested that she was around 18-25 years old when she died, and stood at just over 4.9ft. A healed wound on her leg suggested a serious but non-fatal injury at some point in her life.

1765992187531.png 1765992355650.png

Dietary analysis looking at the carbon and nitrogen values in her bones also revealed that her diet was likely to have included a lot of seafood.

Dr Selina Brace of London’s Natural History Museum said: “Our scientific knowledge and understanding is constantly evolving, and as scientists, it’s our job to keep pushing for answers.

“Thanks to the advancement of technology that has occurred in the past decade, since the Beachy Head woman first came to light, we are excited to report this new comprehensive data and share more about this individual and her life.”

There has been ongoing scientific debate about the skin tone of early Britons, with some researchers suggesting that the constructors of Stonehenge were black.

However, some genetic studies have shown that the inhabitants of Britain in the period when Stonehenge was completed, around 2,500BC, were pale-skinned early farmers, whose ancestors had spread from Anatolia – modern-day Turkey.
 
Humans came out of the Levant, not Africa. Recently, the out of Africa theory has had so much contradictory evidence found that it's laughable that any supposed intellectually honest person subscribes to it. Some very sad individuals have made a religion out of worshipping nigger dick.
It ironically kind of likely stemmed from racist perceptions about black people of the time which makes the progstack people that constantly wax poetic about it seem very very skeevy despite already being that for numerous other reasons that show they basically view non-whites as inferior and just a useful tool to gain power.

Hahahaha is all of “black history” invented by retards? Obviously the “first Briton” wasn’t a negress hottentot from Darkest Fucking Africa.

History in African countries is generally not tied to race shit like this, but yeah a lot of shit out the last decade's made up in Europe and USA (california movies) and you can kinda really easily tell due to how sloppily the revisions were handled.

A black woman was the first Briton. You might disagree. You might even have evidence to the contrary. But you have to ask yourself: is this really worth losing my job over? A black woman was the first Briton.
Wyświetl załącznik 8297058
Yeah that's basically the playbook these people use.

They did try that with that Assassins Creed shit with the black Samurai, and then they called the Japanese racist and when Japanese people didn't like their history fucked with.
Yes, because it was an actual guy from history who was not a samurai but worked with one being turned into a californian black power stereotype samurai mowing down japanese people.

Difference being the Japanese history guy was actually African IIRC.
 
sperged long about it in the conspiracy thread. Humans evolved in the levant and later Caucasus and then split into Asians and Europeans.
Is there a book you can recommend? I'd like to have a source I can trust to go deep on this before I start screaming about it at a New Year's party.
 
I have had more rants at people about this sort of shit than I care to admit, and I will probably continue to do so over various Christmas family gatherings….
Justice for cheddar man and beachy head lady.
 
just out of curiosity, does this stuff actually work on british niggers?, do they talk about cheddar man (and every other 3000 year old corpse that may have been swarthy) like he was the sub-sahharan kang of england which proves being there is their birthright?
 
It wouldn't shock me too much if a few bongos made it to Britain at the height of the Roman Empire. Once virtually anyone could serve in a Legion they had a practice of sending natives of Gaul to Palestine, North Africans to what is now the Balkans and so on. This was done to keep troops unsympathetic to the locals, and vice versa.

I do think the mindset that simultaneously believes race can be identified by DNA testing is typically also held by people who tell us racial differences don't matter.
 
Is there a book you can recommend? I'd like to have a source I can trust to go deep on this before I start screaming about it at a New Year's party.
The first book I found when researching reading material was “Race and Human Evolution: A Fatal Attraction” by Milford H. Wolpoff and Rachel Caspari. This has some evidence for multiregional evolution, but they still claim Africa as the source (and spend a fair bit of the book crying about raycism).

The second book I found is “The Real Planet of the Apes: A New Story of Human Origins” by David Begun, which is both more recent and squarely claims that Eurasia is the birthplace of humanity, and appears to be the superior book in general.
 
If you wonder why scientists are so eager to claim that the earliest Brits or fucking vikings are niggers/arabs. It's because they don't normally fit into their societies. And for whatever reason they don't want to force them to assimilate, (even if they used to) so they simply claim that they've been there forever and thus justifies whatever lack of culture they hold.
 
It wouldn't shock me too much if a few bongos made it to Britain at the height of the Roman Empire. Once virtually anyone could serve in a Legion they had a practice of sending natives of Gaul to Palestine, North Africans to what is now the Balkans and so on. This was done to keep troops unsympathetic to the locals, and vice versa.

I do think the mindset that simultaneously believes race can be identified by DNA testing is typically also held by people who tell us racial differences don't matter.
Or, more perniciously, people who think that the "one-drop rule" is racial lunacy tripling down on "your great-great-great-great-great-great grandpa was listed as 'black' on the 1790 census so you're not a hundred percent Aryan and you should be shook you cracker."

England is history's genetic toilet bowl and has been since the end of the last Ice Age.
 
Desire to know more intensifies
Well, here's an example I had in mind when I wrote the post.


This is the documentary hypothesis. It's a very complex and over engineered theory about the authorship of the first five books of the Bible, claiming to be able to discern 4 separate sources which seem to jump back and forth in the writing at nearly random points. These divisions are based HEAVILY on the particular title used for God in a given passage and alleged differences in writing style.

Only a scholar could come up with something like this. Anyone who's ever actually talked to a human knows that religions often have many different names for God used by the same community or individual. Of course writing style will shift depending on the needs of the moment, the topic being discussed, etc. This theory comes from nothing other than "well surely you don't trust the BIBLE, a prejudiced RELIGIOUS document..."

Now I'm not necessarily a traditionalist on authorship here. It seems fairly clear that the Pentateuch IS a composite document of some type. Consider the massive shift in tone between the mythological presentation style of Babel and the much more straightforward story of Abraham. The stories themselves likely come from different sources, but are considered part of a whole of Israel's history. I have absolutely no idea how much of it was actually written by Moses. Maybe none of it. But JEDP is so dead wrong and so based on nothing it's hilarious. It was the leading theory for DECADES, and even after being thoroughly discredited it hangs around like a fart in an elevator.
 
Humans came out of the Levant, not Africa. Recently, the out of Africa theory has had so much contradictory evidence found that it's laughable that any supposed intellectually honest person subscribes to it. Some very sad individuals have made a religion out of worshipping nigger dick.
The out of Africa theory is a very old theory that basically nobody wanted to question. It really shows how flawed science is now that it takes a really long time for something to even be questioned because the idea of doing that is seen as preposterous.
Imagine trying to loot history.
Rewriting/reframing history is their attempt at justifying present actions. It's not unique to the left. Hitler also did it where archaeologists examined ancient human arrowheads that were found next to neanderthal arrowheads and concluded that the prehistoric Aryans murdered the neanderthals. And that they were just doing what their ancestors did in the modern day.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Wstecz
Top Na dole