but that link doesn't even say that, it actually only specifies green/blue eyes.
I believe Coon said they can have brown eyes, so there's an actual source(a bad one, but nonetheless) for you. You seem to state it like it's a settled science, it's not, and it's completely subjective, especially since human anthropology completely died and stopped being a serious science that attracted serious taxonomists after WW2.
Given all Europeans are extremely mixed nowadays, have an extreme variety of looks(compared to say, Papuans or San bushmen, who are basically pretty much the same inbred phenotype) and people who look intermediary than like textbook examples are far more common, if a person looks largely Hallstatt but has brown eyes, it makes more sense to say +minor Med, Atlantid, whatever than not. When you look at siblings, pigmentation is as varied as skull shape/features, so who are you to say which one is more important or uses more SNPs? There's only two reasons I could see anyone opposing this, and that's a) makes anthropology too complicated because you can barely call anyone with just one phenotype(fair enough), and b) OWD.
Also, on another somewhat unrelated note, I guarantee you actual Iron Age Hallstatt Austrians looked nothing like that Dutch guy or what's considered a "Hallstatt" today(one would also wonder how southern Sweden became the modern Hallstatt hotspot when we now have Hallstatt genomes and Swedes don't have any admixture from them, oh oldschool anthropology..).
Bookmarks