[defrost]

Both.

The bulk of modern Europe was covered in thick glacial ice, when it receded the "first Europeans" walked in from the south.

A number got a lot paler after many generations in the more northern parts, others less pale, and those near the Mediterranean were neither ghost white nor midnight black.

Now throw in a steady low rate of long distance trade - traders travelled, as did those enslaved and traded.

The Roman settlements in England were mainly established by people not from modern Italy, they came from across a broad part of the full Roman Empire, one fort was manned by Africans.

So - legitimately mostly white skinned people with a small percentage of every other shade. Depending very much which bit of "Europe" you're looking at.

[qwytw]

> A number got a lot paler after many generations in the more northern parts, others less pale, and those near the Mediterranean were neither ghost white nor midnight black.

IIRC the current theory is that genes responsible for white skin in Europe were initially introduced by farmers migrating from Anatolia and the middle east (white skin appearings somewhere there or closer to the Caucasus). They almost entirely replaced the indigenous much darker skin hunter gatherers in many areas of Europe,

> one fort was manned by Africans.

North Africans. Who were most likely more "white" back then than now (Trans-Saharan slave trade which transported millions of people from Sub-Saharan Arica wasn't a thing back then).

[defrost]

> North Africans. Who were most likely more "white" back then than now

So .. easily confused with Swedes then?

Or as dark if not darker than (say) Greeks and therefore People Of Some Colour?

How rich was the Kingdom of Aksum and how much trade did they do with India and the Roman Empire, did they travel afar from their own land?

What of their successors, the Abyssinians, did they not once have "all the gold"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Aksum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaleb_of_Axum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migration_to_Abyssinia#/media/...

As I stated, travelling throughout Europe, through the territories of the Roman Empire, all manner of complexions could be seen, some less frequently than others - but there were certainly rich, powerful, and very dark traders from abroad along with no shortage of Mediterrian complexions.

[qwytw]

> So .. easily confused with Swedes then?

Maybe not Swedes (who weren't exactly typical Romans) but with someone from Iberia, Italy, Sicily or Greece? Sure.

Northern Africa wasn't exactly an ethnically homogenous region either. Phoenicians were establishing colonies there for hundreds of years, there was significant contact with the Greeks and other areas in the Mediterranean (including extensive slave trade). By the time the Romans had conquered Britain many Italians had also settled there (and their descendants were likely significantly overrepresented in the legions recruited there, you had to be a citizen to join after all).

> did they travel afar from their own land

I'm not sure we have any evidence of that? But sure it's not impossible that a statistically insignificant number of people from there might have somehow ended up in Roman Britain (and considering how lucrative the Indian Ocean trade what incentives would they have had to travel to other side of the world?)

> the Abyssinians, did they not once have "all the gold"?

Maybe? Not sure how is that related?

> there were certainly rich, powerful, and very dark traders from abroad along with no shortage of Mediterrian complexions.

How is that certain? I agree about the Mediterranean, Northern Europe and the parts of the Middle East who were in close contact with the Romans with numbers of people from those areas exponentially decreasing with distance. Merchants/people from anywhere else? Extremely unlikely to end up in a distant backwater like Britain (unlike in Rome itself for instance).