>>3517879Globular Amphora was an old European agricultural culture named so after their pottery. People online argue about their pigmentation, whether they were dark or blond. What if I told you that one of the most frequently credited sources about their pigmentation is a complete lie?!
I am talking about the 2019 study by Hannes Schroeder that allegedly sequenced 15 Globular Amphora samples from the Koszyce site in Poland. According to this study, they were uniformly brown eyed.
The problem is, this study is a lie. The DNA samples for the 15 individuals buried in Koscyze, which were uploaded to ENA by the CENTRE FOR GEOGENETICS show a predominantly blond and blue eyed phenotype. In fact, when you compare the genotypes from the files uploaded to the European Nucleotide Archive to the study's fabricated table, not a single sample matches up.
There are other studies which have covered the Globular Amphora culture and their pigmentation. Here's the pigmentation data from a study about the Globular Amphora in Czechia. 3 samples. All 3 are predicted to be blond and blue eyed.
In fact, every single Globular Amphora sample that was uploaded to the European nucleotide archive, except those from Koszyce, scores blue eyes with hirisplex.
Guys, for the longest time I had doubt. I was thinking, maybe the study is correct and somehow the DNA samples on ENA are wrong. But then I extracted those samples from Harvard's aadr v62 dataset. I used plink to convert them from eigenstrat format into microarray. The result? Mostly blue eyed.
So we have European Nucleotide archive, the data on the official reichlab aadr, other studies of GAC that feature pigmentation tables, and common sense, all as evidence against this single 2019 study, which alleges that GAC were dark colored.