Not Every Neolithic Find Is About Stonehenge: The Real Story of Ancient Skin Colour

Introduction: Stop Dragging Stonehenge Into It

Let’s get one thing straight: we’re sorry for even mentioning Stonehenge in the title. It’s a tired journalistic trick, slapping “Stonehenge” onto every Neolithic discovery to grab clicks, and it’s frankly exhausting. A recent genetic study from the University of Ferrara in Italy has been spun as revealing the skin colour of Stonehenge’s builders, but—surprise—it’s not specifically about them. The research, which maps pigmentation across ancient Eurasia, is compelling enough without leaning on Stonehenge as a crutch. It suggests dark skin was common in Europe 5,000 years ago, so, sure, Stonehenge’s builders were likely dark-skinned, based on broader trends. We don’t dispute that. But let’s focus on what the study actually says, not the lazy headlines.

Key Points

• The study shows dark skin was prevalent in Europe during the Neolithic period, around 5,000 years ago, but it’s about Eurasian populations, not Stonehenge’s builders specifically.
• Some research suggests Neolithic farmers had lighter skin, fuelling debate, but journalists don’t need Stonehenge to make this interesting.
• As a preprint, the study’s findings are preliminary, yet robust enough to stand without sensationalist props, aligning with prior work like the Cheddar Man study.
• The obsession with tying every find to Stonehenge distracts from the real story: the complex evolution of human pigmentation.

What the Study Actually Found

The University of Ferrara’s study, published as a preprint on bioRxiv, analysed DNA from 348 ancient individuals across Eurasia, spanning 45,000 to 1,700 years ago. It found that dark skin dominated in Europe during the Paleolithic period and remained common into the Neolithic and Bronze Ages. This suggests a slower shift to lighter skin than previously thought, likely driven by adaptation to low sunlight. Stonehenge, built around 5,000 years ago, gets dragged into the narrative because it’s a Neolithic landmark, but the study’s scope is far broader. It’s about population trends, not a specific construction crew.

Why the Stonehenge Hype?

Journalists love Stonehenge because it’s a cultural magnet, instantly evoking mystery and ancient wisdom. But this study doesn’t need that prop. Its findings—that dark skin was common longer than expected—are fascinating without tying them to a single monument. The hype distorts the science, making it seem like the study dug up Stonehenge’s builders when it’s really about a continent-wide genetic picture. Meanwhile, some sources claim Neolithic farmers had lighter skin, stirring debate, but even that doesn’t justify the Stonehenge obsession.

Why It Matters

This research reshapes our view of ancient European diversity, showing dark skin was the norm for longer than assumed. It challenges outdated depictions of ancient Britons and highlights the gradual nature of human adaptation. The Stonehenge link is a distraction— the real story is how our ancestors’ appearance evolved across millennia, not just at one site. The study’s preprint status means it’s not peer-reviewed yet, but its data is strong enough to stand on its own.

What’s Next

Future studies could analyse DNA from actual Stonehenge-related remains to pin down specifics, but that’s not what this study did. Peer review will test its conclusions, potentially settling debates about Neolithic skin colour. For now, let’s stop pretending every ancient DNA find is a Stonehenge exclusive and appreciate the broader picture of human evolution.

Detailed Insights

The Study: Genetic Insights into Ancient Pigmentation

The study, titled Inference of human pigmentation from ancient DNA by genotype likelihood, analysed 348 ancient genomes from Eurasia, covering 45,000 to 1,700 years ago. Led by Silvia Perretti, Maria Teresa Vizzari, and Silvia Ghirotto, it used a genotype likelihood method to infer skin, hair, and eye colour from degraded DNA. It found that 92% of Paleolithic individuals (13,000–35,000 years ago) had dark skin, 8% had intermediate tones, and none had pale skin. By the Iron Age (1,700–3,000 years ago), this shifted to 55% dark, 27% intermediate, and 18% pale. Stonehenge’s era, around 5,000 years ago, falls in a period when dark skin was still prevalent, but the study isn’t zeroing in on Wiltshire.

It builds on earlier work, like the 2018 Cheddar Man study, which found a 10,000-year-old Briton with dark skin and blue eyes, showing continuity in these traits.

Methodology: Decoding Ancient DNA

Skin colour is polygenic, and ancient DNA is often fragmented, making analysis tricky. The Ferrara team tested three pigmentation inference methods, finding genotype likelihood best for low-coverage DNA. This approach compares genetic markers to modern European DNA to predict traits. The study’s 348-genome dataset spans Europe and Asia, but includes no Stonehenge-specific samples. Its reliance on regional trends is solid, but the preprint status means peer review is pending, and journalists exaggerating its Stonehenge connection aren’t helping clarity.The Ferrara study suggests dark skin was common 5,000 years ago, but some research, like a 2019 BBC piece, claims Neolithic farmers had paler skin, brown eyes, and dark hair, unlike darker-skinned Mesolithic locals. 

Implications for Human Evolution

The study shows the shift to lighter skin in Europe was gradual, likely for better vitamin D absorption in low-sunlight areas. Dark skin persisted long after humans left Africa 60,000–70,000 years ago, reflecting diverse ancient populations. Stonehenge’s builders probably fit this pattern, but the study’s value lies in its broader scope, not a single site. It challenges Eurocentric depictions of ancient Britons as pale, urging us to rethink our ancestors’ diversity without needing a Stonehenge headline.

Limitations and Future Directions

The study’s preprint status means it awaits peer review, and its lack of Stonehenge-specific DNA makes the link to its builders an educated guess. The debate over Neolithic skin colour calls for targeted studies, perhaps on Stonehenge burials. Future advances in DNA sequencing could clarify regional pigmentation variations, but for now, the Stonehenge hype is a distraction from solid science.

Conclusion

The Ferrara study convincingly shows dark skin was common in Neolithic Europe, likely including Stonehenge’s builders, but it’s not about them specifically. Journalists’ obsession with Stonehenge cheapens the science, which stands strong without the gimmick. The debate over Neolithic skin colour—dark versus light—reflects the field’s complexity, but this research doesn’t need a famous monument to matter. As peer review looms, let’s focus on the real story: the diverse, evolving tapestry of ancient humans, not just one pile of stones.

Key Data Table

Period	Dark Skin (%)	Intermediate Skin (%)	Pale Skin (%)
Paleolithic (13,000–35,000 years ago)	92	8	0
Iron Age (1,700–3,000 years ago)	55	27	18

References

1. Perretti, S., et al. (2025). Inference of human pigmentation from ancient DNA by genotype likelihood. bioRxiv.
2. The Independent. (2025). Ancient Britons who built Stonehenge had dark skin, scientists reveal.
3. BBC News. (2019). Stonehenge: DNA reveals origin of builders.
4. IBTimes UK. (2025). New DNA Evidence Suggests The Builders Of Stonehenge Were Dark-Skinned.
5. BBC News. (2018). Cheddar Man: DNA shows early Briton had dark skin.