These comments are super confusing in light of reading the article which is quite mundane if an interesting write up of a comparison between finds on two sites and much less politically charged than they make out.
There's a constant attempt in the British archaeology sphere to paint 'indigenous' Britons as dark-skinned even though all the evidence points to them being very light-skinned (as you'd expect at their latitude). It's not just this article but many articles.
Which is why the article picture is so confusing and misleading. Why not show some bones? Why not show the researcher? It's intended to mislead...
I personally think it’s a nice illustration in a relatively banal if interesting article.
Really? "If you don't believe this you're racist"
I've got dark hair dark eyes tanned skin and no British ancestry at all. I look more Middle Eastern than British...
I just hate that a discipline I love (archaeology) is becoming so politicised. The past literally means nothing to the present or future beyond being interesting...
By the way the part you cut out your quote was not meant as an accusation. Just to juxtapose how ludicrous jumping to the conclusion you did was.
Occams Razor favours my explanation in the following paragraph.