>Iron Age Rome: 22.2% blue-eyed (10.6–40.8%, n=27)>Imperial Rome: 4.2% blue-eyed (1.2–14.0%, n=48)>Medieval Rome: 21.4% blue-eyed (10.2–39.5%, n=28)What caused the decline in blue eyes during Imperial Rome?
Proto-Terroni in Rome
>>18011162>lower than modern day Romania Grim.
>>18011162Huge waves of migration from the eastern Mediterranean
Iron Age Italics were not Romans, and it makes no sense for the Etruscans to be so low then. And Medieval England only 12%, around half as much? This is extremely suspect.
>england medieval is shown twicenice made up graph fag
>>18011162Fake
>>18011397source?
>>18011162influx of mid eastern slaves and freedmen
>>18011162picene and rome IA are wrong
>>18013268Slaves were predominantly Iberian and Celt. Near Easterners like Anatolians and Levantines had a much higher status than those slave groups. Romans even respected their enemy Persians as a superior people to Iberians and Celts.
>>18013359yes, that is why western slaves go into the mines, quarries and farms and die in poor conditions when eastern slaves were making money in the cities and spread
>>18011232>and it makes no sense for the Etruscans to be so low then>he still hasn't accepted that Etruscans were in fact Aegeans/Trojans
>>18013513They were not "western slaves". They were slaves mostly from Iberia, Gaul, and Britannia sent to die in mines and quarries. They had little contribution to Roman genetics because of their slave status and high mortality rate. They were not "eastern slaves". They were freemen from Anatolia and the Levant voluntarily migrating to Rome for economic opportunity. They had high contribution to Roman genetics because of their freemen status and low mortality rate.
>>18013528fuck off chatbot
