"Northern" elites in Greece and Rome.

[Boss]

Partly why I don't like focusing on Mycenaean and Minoan periods is the lack of evidence.

This is the famous fresco of a Minoan Prince. Now what in the world am I supposed to conclude from it? we know so little about them, it's ridiculous. Nor do I think that taking features in isolation mean much (do Julius Caesar's "keenly" Black eyes mean he was a "Southerner"?)

But even in later Greece of which we know more:

Again, what am I to conclude from this? I'm referring to the associations people make with modern populations. I can find people looking like that (Plato's face is completely battered but anyways) in many places around Europe (and it's colonies).

Then there are people who look like this

in modern Greece (hair like that I don't think it's easy to find in modern Greece but the face in general). Now this is one of them famous Fayum portraits (many more on google) which, unlike other art, we know were meant to represent people like they were (the descendants of the Hellenistic-Ptolemaic ruling elite of Egypt). Problem is, these Greeks were either mixed with native Egyptian elites or were simply Hellenised Egyptians. Per wiki, their DNA matches the DNA of modern Egyptians more closely (to be fair some of them do look entirely "modern" Egyptian).

One thing is certain though. Such hybrids could not have been 'produced' if the Hellenistic Greeks were "purely" Northerners (I should repeat, the theory I posted on OP is not one of mixture but rather of purity - C. Greeks being purely Northern or purely Southern)

Now this concerns genetics and appearance. Culture is different and, as Maciamo suggested, it does not make one invicible against numerous invaders. Nor does genetic affinity mean anything either. I mean, which culture had more in common with Roman culture? the 'Eastern' Greek or the 'Northern' Germanic/Saxon/Whatever culture(s)? There's also no doubt that the Near Eastern cultures had a significant impact on Classical and Hellenistic Greek cultures which were (virtually?) devoid of "Northern" influences. I'd think the Eastern or 'Oriental' features of Greek (and later Roman!) culture is what made it so attractive (and annoying to anti-Greek Romans like Cato ).

It's one thing to propose genetic affinity and another to propose cultural affinity and I'd rather that we focused on the topic of genetic affinity.

Quite obviously, modern Greece is far from being a homogeneous nation (though for reasons I can't understand, many Greeks seem to think it is) so I would not expect to find anything like *A* typical Greek look. The country's a very diverse and, for example, the Island I'm originally from (Crete - Lasithi for anyone interested!), has a different history from that of, e.g., Northern Greece. It's not outlandish that people might look different in Crete than in Thessaloniki.

All the other Greeks I know here (and in Greece), Northern and Southern, can tell I'm Greek (I used to think I look more Armenian or Georgian but they don't think so). So to be honest, I'm surprised we don't look more different. And I, too, find it very easy to identify other Greek students in England from looks alone.

 

[Dianatomia]

Could you provide examples of texts pointing to this opposite?

Let me elaborate my point. First of all, the Greeks never made any direct statements concerned their racial type. The mere fact that there is such extensive Greek literature and the Greeks never made any statement about aristocrats being any different indicates by itself that there were no racial differences among different classes of ancient Greeks. If there was such a thing, the Greeks would be conscious of the fact that the elites belonged to a different subrace.

Besides, do you expect an 18th century Belgian to make a statement about the racial types of Belgian aristocrats and Belgian workers being the same? Ofcourse not. There is no reason to do such a thing. The Ptolemaic Greeks of Egypt however were different compared to the Egyptians and they were very well aware of that.

There are on the other hand numerous indications and statements in Greek literature that Greeks were different from north Europeans and Africans. Even Thracians (their direct northern neighbours) were said to be lighter than the Greeks. Why not mention that the kings or Aristocrats where fairer too?

What painting or art are you referring to ? The only ones I know show white-skinned women with black hair, though there is no way to know if they are indigenous Greeks or part of the foreign Mycenaean elites.

Indeed, but why put the burden on the question of elites being different? It is up to the one who makes the claim that the elites are different compared to the normal people to proove that there is evidence to believe so. If the evidence is absent, then why make the case? We might as well assume that the elites are darker than the common people and that the ones portrayed are the kings.

It is also interesting to note that the two dominant haplogroups in Crete nowadays are R1b and J2, so it could very well be that a white-skinned R1b population mixed with an older dark-skinned J2 population around the 2nd millennium BCE. It appears that circa 1500-1300 BCE, the two groups hadn't merged completely yet, and that both types could be found quite distinctly (unlike today).

No doubt that different sub-racial groups have mixed in Ancient Greece, but what does that say about the ancient Myceneans resembling North Europeans? No one is portrayed as blond. If they were mostly R1b people as you say, they would resemble Northern Europeans. Instead they resemble modern Greeks who are very much white skinned and have dark brown hair with brown eyes. I find that Greeks (in winter times) have very pale skin, while North Europeans have a pink skintone.

Moreover, I'm sure J2 people can be dark, but I doubt that they were as dark as we may be lead to assume based on the paintings.

The boundary between Mycenaean and Minoan art is not always clear though, as the two civilisations co-existed side by side, and it is sometimes impossible to be sure who painted the frescoes, and what ethnic group is being depicted. The Indo-Europeans were mostly male conquerors who took local wives, and the fact that women (mostly dancers) are the ones depicted in the art from this period doesn't tell us much about the male elite. Furthermore, if the Mycenaean rulers did take local wives, their descendants would have looked hybrid, then increasingly Greek. The Mycenaean civilisation spans 800 years. There are very good chances that the Mycenaean elite in 1900 BCE did not look anything like the one from 1100 BCE, or even 1500 BCE. Unfortunately I don't know of any Mycenaean art depicting the male elite from 1900 to 1800 BCE. That would be the most interesting for us.

We don't have paintings, but we do have remains from burials. Perhaps there we can find some answers.

 

[Wilhelm]

Forget about all these nordic fantasies...ancient greek elites where like your modern Greeks...South-East mediterranean in apperance.

 

[Vallicanus]

Dianatomia,there is no direct link between Y-dna and phenotype.

To suggest that all R1b people are pale and North European and all J2 people are dark contradicts plain facts.

 

[Dianatomia]

Dianatomia,there is no direct link between Y-dna and phenotype.

To suggest that all R1b people are pale and North European and all J2 people are dark contradicts plain facts.

Perhaps not the individual, but a population which has an extremely high amount of J2 would be darker than a population which has a high amount of R1B.

At least, it does in the context of this topic: "northern elites in ancient Greece and Rome". If the elites were northern, then they must have had high amounts of R1* or I. If the elites were not isolated and were multi-racial (i.e. R1*,E and J) , then that statement does not hold true scientifically. In that case, individuals of ancient elites could be R1* and have dark hair and eyes, or could be J2 and could be blonde with blue eyes. This results to your average South European mix which means that the elites were not northern.

However, judging from art, paintings, literature and burial remains, all the evidence points to the opposite. Meaning, that the elites (at least of Greece) were not (exclusively) of north european ancestry.

 

[Boss]

Perhaps not the individual, but a population which has an extremely high amount of J2 would be darker than a population which has a high amount of R1B.

At least, it does in the context of this topic: "northern elites in ancient Greece and Rome". If the elites were northern, then they must have had high amounts of R1* or I. If the elites were not isolated and were multi-racial (i.e. R1*,E and J) , then that statement does not hold true scientifically. In that case, individuals of ancient elites could be R1* and have dark hair and eyes, or could be J2 and could be blonde with blue eyes. This results to your average South European mix which means that the elites were not northern.

However, judging from art, paintings, literature and burial remains, all the evidence points to the opposite. Meaning, that the elites (at least of Greece) were not (exclusively) of north european ancestry.

Quick point:

None of the Greco-Roman painted statues I've seen, have have blue eyes or blonde hair (most are brown or light brown). Gods and non-humans excluded. I am not convinced that that means anything for the ethnicity of these people.

(it looks as though Augustus's lips are of the same colour as his eyes :grin

People are free to draw whatever conclusions they want from them.

 

[Maciamo]

Let me elaborate my point. First of all, the Greeks never made any direct statements concerned their racial type. The mere fact that there is such extensive Greek literature and the Greeks never made any statement about aristocrats being any different indicates by itself that there were no racial differences among different classes of ancient Greeks. If there was such a thing, the Greeks would be conscious of the fact that the elites belonged to a different subrace.

Anthropology was only invented in the late 19th century. How can we expect people from the Antiquity to have commented in a reasonably scientific manner on the anthropological variations within Greece, and outside Greece ? Anyway I am only interested in the early Mycenaean elite of Greece, and we have no text with physical descriptions from that period. All we can rely on are anthropometrics from skeletons and autosomal DNA for the hair, eye and skin pigmentation.

No doubt that different sub-racial groups have mixed in Ancient Greece, but what does that say about the ancient Myceneans resembling North Europeans? No one is portrayed as blond. If they were mostly R1b people as you say, they would resemble Northern Europeans. Instead they resemble modern Greeks who are very much white skinned and have dark brown hair with brown eyes. I find that Greeks (in winter times) have very pale skin, while North Europeans have a pink skintone.

I didn't say that the Mycenaeans looked like Northern Europeans. I said that they were Indo-Europeans who came from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. These Indo-Europeans would not have looked anything like a modern Scandinavian (whose phenotype are mostly inherited from I1 people). In fact, based on the remains from Kurgan burials from the Yamna period, it seems that the steppe people were often of Proto-European type, which means intermediary between European and East Asian. They had lower foreheads, shorter heads (brachycephalic), broader faces and smaller noses, though not as much as typical Mongoloid people. Many of them probably had fair hair and eyes, because in all the places where R1a (and to a lesser extent R1b1b2a1) is found, there are people with blond hair and fair eyes (including ethnic groups from Central Asia, Siberia and Mongolia who have R1a among their lineages). It is a common mistake to imagine that the steppe Indo-Europeans would have looked like modern Celtic or Germanic people. They might have been closer to blond and blue-eyed Mongols or Uyghurs.

 

[Diurpaneus]

I didn't say that the Mycenaeans looked like Northern Europeans. I said that they were Indo-Europeans who came from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. These Indo-Europeans would not have looked anything like a modern Scandinavian (whose phenotype are mostly inherited from I1 people). In fact, based on the remains from Kurgan burials from the Yamna period, it seems that the steppe people were often of Proto-European type, which means intermediary between European and East Asian. They had lower foreheads, shorter heads (brachycephalic), broader faces and smaller noses, though not as much as typical Mongoloid people. Many of them probably had fair hair and eyes, because in all the places where R1a (and to a lesser extent R1b1b2a1) is found, there are people with blond hair and fair eyes (including ethnic groups from Central Asia, Siberia and Mongolia who have R1a among their lineages). It is a common mistake to imagine that the steppe Indo-Europeans would have looked like modern Celtic or Germanic people. They might have been closer to blond and blue-eyed Mongols or Uyghurs.

Here are some examples:

http://www.ziaremondene.ro/files/photos/big/45/47445/Alexandra_Ungureanu.jpg

the "left-right" brothers

http://www.imagini.ha-ha.ro/imagini/vechi/la_un_pahar_cu_vin.jpg


ancient persians

http://www.cultureofiran.com/images/pictures/nouruz-02.jpg




more "mongoloid" traits:

http://www.frontpress.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/maramures-19391.jpg


http://www.imagini.ha-ha.ro/imagini/vechi/poarta_maramures.jpg


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KugpuHRwB.../K14xiwu1mXs/s640/2951550362_a4ecfcbf84_z.jpg



the first picture:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAtdTlTb5Hw

 

[Yetos]

Anthropology was only invented in the late 19th century. How can we expect people from the Antiquity to have commented in a reasonably scientific manner on the anthropological variations within Greece, and outside Greece ? Anyway I am only interested in the early Mycenaean elite of Greece, and we have no text with physical descriptions from that period. All we can rely on are anthropometrics from skeletons and autosomal DNA for the hair, eye and skin pigmentation.




I didn't say that the Mycenaeans looked like Northern Europeans. I said that they were Indo-Europeans who came from the Pontic-Caspian steppes. These Indo-Europeans would not have looked anything like a modern Scandinavian (whose phenotype are mostly inherited from I1 people). In fact, based on the remains from Kurgan burials from the Yamna period, it seems that the steppe people were often of Proto-European type, which means intermediary between European and East Asian. They had lower foreheads, shorter heads (brachycephalic), broader faces and smaller noses, though not as much as typical Mongoloid people. Many of them probably had fair hair and eyes, because in all the places where R1a (and to a lesser extent R1b1b2a1) is found, there are people with blond hair and fair eyes (including ethnic groups from Central Asia, Siberia and Mongolia who have R1a among their lineages). It is a common mistake to imagine that the steppe Indo-Europeans would have looked like modern Celtic or Germanic people. They might have been closer to blond and blue-eyed Mongols or Uyghurs.

Nope,
Moggolians and Uygurs are much much darker,

In Bulgaria in East parts were Bulgars and Turks (Edirne) settled we have the darkest people in Balkans

conserning the look here are some photos of Tocharian mummies

and look how is reconstructed

I woder how different was Otzi?

there are some good photos in
http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/White_people.htm



Like the bellow,
Albinism in Pakistan today in a tribe
do you believe they are pakistanis?
or North Europeans?

 

[Dianatomia]

Anthropology was only invented in the late 19th century. How can we expect people from the Antiquity to have commented in a reasonably scientific manner on the anthropological variations within Greece, and outside Greece ? Anyway I am only interested in the early Mycenaean elite of Greece, and we have no text with physical descriptions from that period. All we can rely on are anthropometrics from skeletons and autosomal DNA for the hair, eye and skin pigmentation.

If the people didn't understand even to a degree the variations in antiquity, then how are the elites supposed to have maintained their 'northern' ancestry compared to the rest of the populations? Either they had some general understanding or they didn't care. If they didn't care, there is no reason to believe that the elites were different from the commoners for so many generations.

You are right to devote your attention to early Mycenean Greece. If they were Indo-European you only have to dig deep enough in order to find more R1a or R1b. However, it may very well be that just like the south Slavs, they were already mixed when they invaded Greece in 2000 BC.

Having said that, I think that when most people like to claim that there were 'northern' elites in Ancient Greece, they like to refer to Homeric, Classical and Hellenistic Greeks. Not the early Myceaneans.

 

[Knovas]

Albinism has nothing to do with ancestral markers, I see no reason to post about this. The text below the picture is nonsense.

 

[Yetos]

Albinism has nothing to do with ancestral markers, I see no reason to post about this. The text below the picture is nonsense.

Nope it has much to do,

The myth of a Northern Blond Elite Blue eyes IE maybe even is a myth,

as you see Albinism which in some villages show big % can also give results simmilar to Blondism,

now conserning thatin frica thay eat Albinos,
maybe the born of an albino child was like a messiah to some other cultures,

what I mean the myth of Blond IE even in North Europe does not fit,
Blondism is mutation in Baltic and not in Steppe,

I post the link so some to understand that a IE in steppe might be a black R1b or R1a like in Africa,

Mutations like blondism enter from Female population to IE populations

Now in case of Balkanic and Ucraine population we see the red hair much North than the Tracians south,
Blue eyes Budini are much North than Green eyes Thracians and we see no Mycenean Blond or Red but naibly a Brown from dark to light Brown,
BROWN HAIR IS LIKE AN ALBINISM,
BROWN HAIR MEANS LUCK OF COLOUR CHROMOSOME,

IF IE were an elite from North then why Blond and red hair are even rare to Roman times to today?
why they did not enter their genes in women that probably had weak hair colour chromosomes?

kids with brown hair may even born more blond white colour,

In Greece that phenomenon is strong,
I was born Blond until 3 years old and now I am brown, Dark brown in winter light brown to almost orange at summer.

 

[Boss]

Forget about all these nordic fantasies...ancient greek elites where like your modern Greeks...South-East mediterranean in apperance.

It's not at all obvious that it should be so. Modern Greece has received many populations during the past 2000 years. What's more, different areas were under different occupations. E.g. Crete has had 150 years of Andalusian Muslim occupation followed by 450 years of Venetian occupation and ending with 250 years of Turkish rule. Now none of the other regions in Greece had that. The Ionian islands were never under Turkish rule but most of mainland Greece had nearly 400 years of it. Morea had Frankish rule for centuries (250 years) - again, it's unique in that regard. As far as I know, the Slavs never reached Southern Greece and the Islands but Bulgars held Northern Greece for some time. Arvanites and Vlachs settled in Central (and Northern?) Greece and, according to some sources, Athens had a sizeable Arvanite community for a long time.

So yeah...It's not at all obvious that A. Greeks and M. Greeks should look identical (not denying there's some kind of continuity) and it's not even obvious that among different regions, Greeks should look similar (as I said I find it surprising that we do).

 

[Yetos]

It's not at all obvious that it should be so. Modern Greece has received many populations during the past 2000 years. What's more, different areas were under different occupations. E.g. Crete has had 150 years of Andalusian Muslim occupation followed by 450 years of Venetian occupation and ending with 250 years of Turkish rule. Now none of the other regions in Greece had that. The Ionian islands were never under Turkish rule but most of mainland Greece had nearly 400 years of it. Morea had Frankish rule for centuries (250 years) - again, it's unique in that regard. As far as I know, the Slavs never reached Southern Greece and the Islands but Bulgars held Northern Greece for some time. Arvanites and Vlachs settled in Central (and Northern?) Greece and, according to some sources, Athens had a sizeable Arvanite community for a long time.

So yeah...It's not at all obvious that A. Greeks and M. Greeks should look identical (not denying there's some kind of continuity) and it's not even obvious that among different regions, Greeks should look similar (as I said I find it surprising that we do).

The difference is that these you call settlements were Elite except of Athens Arbanites estimated to 50-70 000 in Athens and Boiotia,
in Crete Venicians were forbiden to take their families or to mary,
only in Lasithi I think it was allowed to settle 10 000 venicians,

If you are Cretan ask your self,
what the job of καλημεριδες,
and why in areas near Goergia Lyra sings.

 

[Knovas]

From Wiki:

Albinism (from Latin albus, "white"; see extended etymology, also called achromia, achromasia, or achromatosis) is a congenital disorder characterized by the complete or partial absence of pigment in the skin, hair and eyes due to absence or defect of tyrosinase, a copper-containing enzyme involved in the production of melanin. Albinism results from inheritance of recessive gene alleles and is known to affect all vertebrates, including humans. While an organism with complete absence of melanin is called an albino (

/ælˈbaɪnoʊ/ American English,^[1] or /ælˈbiːnoʊ/ British English)^[2] an organism with only a diminished amount of melanin is described as albinoid.^[3]

As you can see, it's pretty clear there's no ancestral information to infer from this, so it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[Yetos]

From Wiki:

Albinism (from Latin albus, "white"; see extended etymology, also called achromia, achromasia, or achromatosis) is a congenital disorder characterized by the complete or partial absence of pigment in the skin, hair and eyes due to absence or defect of tyrosinase, a copper-containing enzyme involved in the production of melanin. Albinism results from inheritance of recessive gene alleles and is known to affect all vertebrates, including humans. While an organism with complete absence of melanin is called an albino (

/ælˈbaɪnoʊ/ American English,^[1] or /ælˈbiːnoʊ/ British English)^[2] an organism with only a diminished amount of melanin is described as albinoid.^[3]

As you can see, it's pretty clear there's no ancestral information to infer from this, so it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.

ty, you just show me want I want you to see,

some colours are due to a gene,
some are due to lack of a gene
enzymes production is not same to all humans cause sometimes the productivity is connected with the existance or lack of a gene

Brown hair colour is like Albinism, lack of a gene that gives colour to hair

brown hair people can change their hair by controling hormones, food, sunlight, mettals, natural
blonde and red and black very difficult

Both Tocharian mummies and Otzi have brown hair and black.
ok Otzi was not IE but Tocharian mummies?
(or Otzi was since G2a3?)

 

[Knovas]

NO, it's not the same. Albinism is a disorder, having brown hair is not. What's your point then? are the most depigmented Finns and Scandinavians Albinos according to you? Sorry, but it makes no sense to talk about this here...I think you're twisting things.

 

[Yetos]

NO, it's not the same. Albinism is a disorder, having brown hair is not. What's your point then? are the most depigmented Finns and Scandinavians Albinos according to you? Sorry, but it makes no sense to talk about this here...I think you're twisting things.

ok,
lets see, the photos of tocharian mumies is not a disorder,

you are talking about the photo with the pakistani's right?

and I ask you,
if in a village we find no albinism for centuries,
and in another we find very common,
is n't that strange?

now have you ever wonder why Albinism gives blonde and red hair?

I don't say that Scans are albinos, I believe that the genes of Blonde and Red are founder mutattions of local populations or from a disosrter while brown or the lack of the colour gene might be an early protection against the disorder.

IT IS COMMON PHENOMENA A BLOND SCAND OR RUS WHEN COMES TO GREECE TO HAVE SKIN BURN IN 1/2 -1 HOUR sun exposion,
so maybe the order is after the disorter?

TO END THIS
I SAY THAT IE EITHER STEPPE, EITHER NEAR EAST WERE NOT BLONDES, NEITHER RED,
BUT THEY GOT RED AND BLONDE FROM THE AREAS THEY ENTER.... FROM FEMALE POPULATION.

IF IE WERE BLONDES THEN BALKANS SHOULD BE MORE BLONDES, CAUSE IF A STRONG GENE WITH A WEAK GENE MEET STRONG GIVES ITS ORDERS.

my point is Brown Blond and red is a nature help to transform Albinism disorter to an order,

an Albino has better chances in a dark forest of North than in Mediterrenean sea, so the % disorter has better chances to become order in one day.

 

[Boss]

The difference is that these you call settlements were Elite except of Athens Arbanites estimated to 50-70 000 in Athens and Boiotia,
in Crete Venicians were forbiden to take their families or to mary,
only in Lasithi I think it was allowed to settle 10 000 venicians,

If you are Cretan ask your self,
what the job of καλημεριδες,
and why in areas near Goergia Lyra sings.

Arbanites:

I've seen figures ranging from tens of thousands to half a million. Where do you get that figure from?

As for Venice:

"The application of Venetian law to the colony made it possible for the colonial power to create and maintain a fiction of ethnic distinctness. The Greeks were subordinate to the Latins economically, politically, and juridically, yet within a century of Venetian colonization, the ethnic differences between Latin and Greek Cretans in daily material life were significantly blurred. Members of the groups intermarried, many of them learned each other's language, and some even chose to worship by the rites of the other's church. "

So what you say was true for the first 100 years but not true for the following 350+. Read McKee's book, there's much more to be said about it (I don't have it with me atm but I can quote many more of her passages if I need to).

And yes I am Lasithiote Cretan (as in, actually born and raised there, not being Canadian or whatever of Cretan origin) and I know Cretan society really well. I know my neighbours' last names, I know what our accent sounds like and I know a great deal of the words our great grandparents used which are not used anymore. The words of Turkish and Venetian origin in particular used to be so numerous that I couldn't even understand what my great grandparents were talking about (some of them not having a formal education at all).

The best counter-argument is that after their defeat by the Turks, many 'Latinised' Cretans probably migrated to Venice and so did the Muslims following the Cretan revolution (the entire community migrated to Turkey even though most of them were Cretan Greeks who had converted to Islam for taxation purposes and didn't even speak Turkish). But ofc, the Orthodox community remained.

Oh also, let's not forget that when Fokas pwned the Arabs (Andalusians), he repopulated the Island with Byzantines (Romans!) from the rest of the Empire. So maybe many of us today don't have anything to do with the pre-Byzantine Crete as far as genetics are concerned...

 

[Yetos]

Arbanites:

I've seen figures ranging from tens of thousands to half a million. Where do you get that figure from?

As for Venice:

"The application of Venetian law to the colony made it possible for the colonial power to create and maintain a fiction of ethnic distinctness. The Greeks were subordinate to the Latins economically, politically, and juridically, yet within a century of Venetian colonization, the ethnic differences between Latin and Greek Cretans in daily material life were significantly blurred. Members of the groups intermarried, many of them learned each other's language, and some even chose to worship by the rites of the other's church. "

So what you say was true for the first 100 years but not true for the following 350+. Read McKee's book, there's much more to be said about it (I don't have it with me atm but I can quote many more of her passages if I need to).

And yes I am Lasithiote Cretan (as in, actually born and raised there, not being Canadian or whatever of Cretan origin) and I know Cretan society really well. I know my neighbours' last names, I know what our accent sounds like and I know a great deal of the words our great grandparents used which are not used anymore. The words of Turkish and Venetian origin in particular used to be so numerous that I couldn't even understand what my great grandparents were talking about (some of them not having a formal education at all).

The best counter-argument is that after their defeat by the Turks, many 'Latinised' Cretans probably migrated to Venice and so did the Muslims following the Cretan revolution (the entire community migrated to Turkey even though most of them were Cretan Greeks who had converted to Islam for taxation purposes and didn't even speak Turkish). But ofc, the Orthodox community remained.

Oh also, let's not forget that when Fokas pwned the Arabs (Andalusians), he repopulated the Island with Byzantines (Romans!) from the rest of the Empire. So maybe many of us today don't have anything to do with the pre-Byzantine Crete as far as genetics are concerned...

The story of Handakas is another story,
repopulation was not done by the whole empire but mainly Ionia, and there are areas in Crete that almost from Minoan times are the same,
Σητεια kai Γορτυνα are considered teritories with low mix.
The case of Minoans from ancient times to today the major problem is the repopulation of the Island after Thera Volcano.and not Venice or Arabs,
In whole Greece little are the considered Venice population areas, although many were under control.
in case of Ottomans you know that Turks never settled Island that was property of Hamid's mother
2 kind of Cretans are mentioned as Muslims, Hamindje in Syria, and a Village in Turkey,
Back to geneticks,
Sometimes isolated group of villages give more correct result,
remember that in Greece even in small islands we avoid to mary closer than 2nd cousins,
sometimes we bring the bride, sometimes the γαμπρος. there were villages that a foreigner if was good worker marry him with violence, remember that,

Now about Numbers,
once I was at Chania I lloked the Catholic church numbers, and they are almost the same with what they were before 150 years.