Printable View
Didn't knew that. And do you think there shouldn't be any Greek aggregate that collects all regions of Greece? I noticed the same is with Russians, Germans, Dutch, Spanish, Italians, that they don't have a national aggregate, only regional ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
those averages probably wouldn't be very useful for modelling purposes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunai
it would still be interesting to see them. but they would need to be carefully weighted by population size.
also, a 100 years old or more census would have to be used if possible. because, for example, it makes no sense to multiyply the average of the natives of Athens region by 3 million, just because 3 million people from all over Greece live there now.
That's only the city, but the surrounding area is called Ilfov. You can also see it in the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
I don't think it is so illogical to have national aggregates, since all current European countries are nation-states and not region-states. Of course the minorities of a given country shouldn't be calculated into the national aggregate, but honestly, to most people in the real world, they speak of Spanish, Greeks, Germans, Italians, Russians, and very rarely they make the distinction of referring to Thessalians, Westphalians, Apulians, Novgorodians, etc. Me personally, I do like to see what an average Spanish, Polish, Turkish, Irish, Greek or anyone else looks like genetically.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
all that is true, i just meant those averages aren't very useful for somebody searching for his ancestry, because his Greek ancestry could be from Pontic Greeks, who are genetically very different from the average Greeks, and other similar situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunai
My point wasn't to exclude the already established regional aggregates, but to add also national ones. For example I like to run customized calculators by focusing only on the larger picture, like nations, and on such occasions I do exclude regions from the Source, which sometimes show way too bloated and repetitive results. Like for example rather than having 7 Hungarian regions in my top 10 distances, I would rather have one that represents the aggregate of Hungarians. Of course other times I do enjoy the quirks of all the small regional break-downs, but I would rather have the option to choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by vbnetkhio
a simplified spreadsheet, i get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunai
National average do make sense but largely in the case of more homogeneous nations. However splitting hairs isn't good in my opinion. For example having 5-6 different Balkan Turk averages or something like that is completely unnecessary. Especially if they're based on 2-3 samples each.
I agree with this. I do agree that if there are historical reasons for certain regions of a given nation were more isolated from the rest of the other regions, then their result shouldn't be included into the national average. As an example, I didn't include Eastern Hungarian (Transylvanian, Székely, Csángó) samples into the Hungarian aggregate, since they lived more isolated from other Hungarian regions of the Carpathian Basin, and they do have slight different results compared to other Hungarian regions, which historically went through internal migration, and have mixed more with each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
Here you go, only unmixed ethnic Romanians/Moldovans (422 samples):Quote:
Originally Posted by ixulescu
Left = North Atlantic (Northwestern) shift
Right = no idea
Up = Baltic (Northeastern) shift
Down = Med (Southern) shift
https://i.imgur.com/iFiZKeZ.png?1