Page 357 of 369 FirstFirst ... 257307347353354355356357358359360361367 ... LastLast
Results 3,561 to 3,570 of 3683

Thread: Gedmatch calculators on Vahaduo

  1. #3561
    Veteran Member
    Apricity Funding Member
    "Friend of Apricity"


    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:47 PM
    Location
    Pole position
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Country
    Poland
    Y-DNA
    R1b-BY194358
    mtDNA
    W6a
    Gender
    Posts
    23,761
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 23,005/717
    Given: 20,154/1,181

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    ^^^
    That's not what Sven told me, he said, quote: "she is a Sorb, but Sorbian culture was suppressed in this area [by Germanization]".

    Even you did not strongly insist on calling that individual German back then. You have changed your mind after 3 years.

  2. #3562
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Last Online
    03-11-2024 @ 04:25 PM
    Ethnicity
    Unknown
    Country
    Antarctica
    Gender
    Posts
    3,910
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 3,464/7
    Given: 1,535/1

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MoroLP View Post
    But what's the point of naming and having it as Bosniak if Bosniak isn't calculated using regional averages? Currently, we have two-three Bosniak national averages.
    There was only this academic one. Another user removed it, and now Stearsolina requested it to be added back to the sheet.

    Quote Originally Posted by MoroLP View Post
    It is confusing. Of course, the national average should be weighted by regional population size. Hence we need to know which Canton samples are included in each regional average.
    something like this:


    I didn't want to update the average yet, because I feel these new averages are still weak, and using those regionally mixed academic samples feels more reliable.

    Quote Originally Posted by MoroLP View Post
    Bosniak Sandzak shouldn't be added to the Bosniak average, they aren't very related to the Bosniaks from BiH. Speak a different dialect and with different genetics actually are Serbianized-Bosniakized Albanians. We need a clear Bosniak average for BiH like in scientific papers.
    It isn't so clear cut. Bosniaks from eastern Bosnia have some dialectal and genetic similarities with Sandžak. There is also a difference between eastern and western Sandžak, the latter has little Albanian influence and it should get it's own average when enough samples are connected.

    Also, if we apply this criterium to the Bosniaks, it should be applied to all other averages in the sheet too. And the current sheet is made with respect to ethnic self-identification, not country borders, so it would require a lot of changing.

    Most of the scientific papers on the population of B&H sample a lot of Sandžak Bosniaks living in Sarajevo, they shouldn't be taken as some measure of quality.

  3. #3563
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Last Online
    02-23-2022 @ 01:59 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    European
    Ethnicity
    Magyar
    Ancestry
    Historic Hungary/Holy Roman Empire
    Country
    Hungary
    Y-DNA
    R-M417 (8700 ybp)
    mtDNA
    H10-a T16093C (9000 ybp)
    Politics
    Green Left
    Religion
    Atheist
    Gender
    Posts
    2,292
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 2,868/149
    Given: 444/392

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Current Bosniak average is the one of Bosniaks from Bosnia, excluding Sandzak Bosniaks, so I don't know why should it be replaced back with the academic one, but I am not an expert on them as people from that region so I may be wrong.

  4. #3564
    account terminated.
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Online
    09-18-2023 @ 03:11 PM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Country
    Abkhazia
    Gender
    Posts
    48,274
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 52,629/1,011
    Given: 43,539/788

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dunai View Post
    Current Bosniak average is the one of Bosniaks from Bosnia, excluding Sandzak Bosniaks, so I don't know why should it be replaced back with the academic one, but I am not an expert on them as people from that region so I may be wrong.
    It's not replaced, it was just renamed to Bosniak central and northeastern, because all the samples in that (current) average are from there.

  5. #3565
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Last Online
    07-31-2025 @ 08:40 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Indo-European, Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Russian (privately view myself as Aryan)
    Country
    Brunei
    Region
    Russian Turkestan General Governorship
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z282-YP350
    Religion
    Orthodox Christian
    Gender
    Posts
    24,264
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 15,693/315
    Given: 8,913/358

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    I've learned Sanzhak is not even part of BiH. I thought it was Southern Bosnia How are they "the future of the Bonsiaks", according to Varda?..

  6. #3566
    account terminated.
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Last Online
    09-18-2023 @ 03:11 PM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Country
    Abkhazia
    Gender
    Posts
    48,274
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 52,629/1,011
    Given: 43,539/788

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    I've learned Sanzhak is not even part of BiH. I thought it was Southern Bosnia How are they "the future of the Bonsiaks", according to Varda?..
    They have very good birth rate for the region, while Bosniak population in BiH is declining. Southern part of BiH is called Herzegovina btw.

  7. #3567
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2020
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:00 PM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Serb
    Ethnicity
    Serb
    Ancestry
    Dalmatian hinterland
    Country
    Serbia
    Gender
    Posts
    10,019
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 7,645/331
    Given: 6,156/41

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leto View Post
    I've learned Sanzhak is not even part of BiH. I thought it was Southern Bosnia How are they "the future of the Bonsiaks", according to Varda?..
    So called Sandžak is in southwestern Serbia and northern/northeastern Montenegro https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandžak

  8. #3568
    Member MoroLP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Last Online
    09-18-2025 @ 06:50 PM
    Ethnicity
    N/A
    Country
    Croatia
    Gender
    Posts
    134
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 116/4
    Given: 218/6

    1 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vbnetkhio View Post
    There was only this academic one. Another user removed it, and now Stearsolina requested it to be added back to the sheet.

    something like this:
    Why is Canton Sarajevo added to the Southeast? Doesn't geographically makes more sense having it make Central Bosnian average with Srednjobosanski and Zeničko-Dobojski Canton; Tuzla Canton and other blue area making Northeast average; else is obviously divided between Northwestern and Southeastern average? Do we have enough samples to try something like this?

    Historical_regions_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg

    Bosnia.regions.jpeg

    Bosnia.AIPUB regions.jpg

    Quote Originally Posted by vbnetkhio View Post
    It isn't so clear cut. Bosniaks from eastern Bosnia have some dialectal and genetic similarities with Sandžak. There is also a difference between eastern and western Sandžak, the latter has little Albanian influence and it should get it's own average when enough samples are connected.

    Also, if we apply this criterium to the Bosniaks, it should be applied to all other averages in the sheet too. And the current sheet is made with respect to ethnic self-identification, not country borders, so it would require a lot of changing.

    Most of the scientific papers on the population of B&H sample a lot of Sandžak Bosniaks living in Sarajevo, they shouldn't be taken as some measure of quality.
    I meant both Y-DNA and atDNA. In scientific and genetic genealogical samples we see a clear general difference between Bosniaks from BiH and Sandžak on both Y-DNA and atDNA. The latter population is not Bosniaks. Nobody when thinks about Bosniaks thinks about Sandžak. It is only confusing and misleading people. They became Bosniaks by ethnic identification only in recent history because of religious identification with ethnic identities in Western Balkans - Muslims became Bosniaks. In pre-Yugoslavian censuses, Sandžak Muslims were ethnically identified mostly as Albanians. We already have a kind of controversial chronology of identification of Muslim Bosniaks as Muslims and then as Bosniaks in BiH. The one with Sandžak Muslims is even more complex and adding it up only makes it harder instead of making genetic comparisons easier, it’s not pragmatic anyway.

    The farthest regional and supraregional Croatian averages have a distance of 8.9 (Herzegovina-Northwest) and 6.0 (South-North) while from the Croatian national average 2.7 and 3.2.

    The farthest regional Serbian averages have a distance of 3.9 (Herzegovina-Republika Srpska), 4.28 (South-Republika Srpska), or 7.1 (Montenegro-Republika Srpska) while from the Serbian national average of 1.7-2.3-4.9

    "Bosniak_Sandžak" average has the farthest distance of staggering 13.2 from "Bosniak_Central_Northeast" and closest distance of only 7.06 from "Bosniak_Southeast" while from the Bosniak "old-new" national average of 9.8 - to "Albanian Gheg" is 8.89 and 9.84 to "Albanian". They are closer to Gheg Albanians than to Bosniaks from BiH. They are obviously not part of the same (Bosniak) ethnic population.

    The population of the sanjak of Novi Pazar was ethnically and religiously diverse. In 1878-81, Muslim Slav muhacirs (refugees) from areas which became part of Montenegro, settled in the sanjak. As Ottoman institutions only registered religious affiliation, official Ottoman statistics about ethnicity do not exist. Austrian, Bulgarian and Serbian consulates in the area produced their own ethnographic estimations about the sanjak. In general, three main groups lived in the region: Orthodox Serbs, Muslim Albanians and Muslim Slavs (noted in contemporary sources as Bosnian or Herzegovinian Muslims). Small communities of Romani, Turks and Jews lived mainly in towns. The Bulgarian foreign ministry compiled a report in 1901-02. The five kazas (districs) of the sanjak of the Novi Pazar at that time were: Akova, Sjenica, Kolašin, Novi Pazar and Novi Varoš. According to the Bulgarian report, in the kaza of Akova there were 47 Albanian villages which had 1,266 households. Serbs lived in 11 villages which had 216 households.[53] The town of Akova (Bijelo Polje) had 100 Albanian and Serb households. There were also mixed villages - inhabited by both Serbs and Albanians - which had 115 households with 575 inhabitants. The kaza of Sjenica was inhabited mainly by Orthodox Serbs (69 villages with 624 households) and Bosnian Muslims (46 villages with 655 households). Seventeen villages had a population of both Orthodox Serbs and Bosnian Muslims. Albanians (505 households) lived exclusively in the town of Sjenica. The kaza of Novi Pazar had 1,749 households in 244 Serb villages and 896 households in 81 Albanian villages. Nine villages inhabited by both Serbs and Albanians had 173 households. The town of Novi Pazar had a total of 1,749 Serb and Albanian households with 8,745 inhabitants.[54] The kaza of Kolašin had 27 Albanian villages with 732 households and 5 Serb villages with 75 households. The administrative centre of the kaza, Šahovići, had 25 Albanian households. The kaza of Novi Varoš, according the Bulgarian report, had 19 Serbian villages with 298 households and "one Bosnian village with 200 houses".[55] Novi Varoš had 725 Serb and some Albanian households.[56]

    The last official registration of the population of the sanjak of Novi Pazar before the Balkan Wars was conducted in 1910. The 1910 Ottoman census recorded 52,833 Muslims and 27,814 Orthodox Serbs. About 65% of the population were Muslims and 35% Serbian Orthodox. The majority of the Muslim population were Albanians. [57]

    Sandžak is a very ethnically diverse region. Most Bosniaks declared themselves ethnic Muslims in 1991 census. By the 2002-2003 census, however, most of them declared themselves Bosniaks. There is still a significant minority that identify as Muslims (by ethnicity). There are still some Albanian villages (Boroštica, Doliće and Ugao) in the Pešter region.[58] There were a larger presence of Albanians in Sandžak in the past, however due to various factors such as migration, assimilation, along with mixing, many identify as Bosniaks instead.[18][59][60]

    The Slavic dialect of Gusinje and Plav (sometimes considered part of Sandžak) shows very high structural influence from Albanian. Its uniqueness in terms of language contact between Albanian and Slavic is explained by the fact that most Slavic-speakers in today's Plav and Gusinje are of Albanian origin.[61]
    Last edited by MoroLP; 01-18-2022 at 10:30 PM.

  9. #3569
    Veteran Member CommonSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Last Online
    01-04-2025 @ 06:21 PM
    Location
    Belgrade
    Meta-Ethnicity
    South Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Serbian
    Ancestry
    81.25% Serbian, 12.5% Croatian, 6.25% Romanian
    Country
    Serbia
    Y-DNA
    G-Y225016
    mtDNA
    H12a*
    Taxonomy
    Pontid + Alpine/Gorid
    Religion
    Agnosticism
    Age
    29
    Gender
    Posts
    9,561
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 8,835/73
    Given: 8,960/67

    0 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MoroLP View Post
    Why is Canton Sarajevo added to the Southeast? Doesn't geographically makes more sense having it make Central Bosnian average with Srednjobosanski and Zeničko-Dobojski Canton; Tuzla Canton and other blue area making Northeast average; else is obviously divided between Northwestern and Southeastern average? Do we have enough samples to try something like this?

    Historical_regions_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg

    Bosnia.regions.jpeg

    Bosnia.AIPUB regions.jpg



    I meant both Y-DNA and atDNA. In scientific and genetic genealogical samples we see a clear general difference between Bosniaks from BiH and Sandžak on both Y-DNA and atDNA. The latter population is not Bosniaks. Nobody when thinks about Bosniaks thinks about Sandžak. It is only confusing and misleading people. They became Bosniaks by ethnic identification only in recent history because of religious identification with ethnic identities in Western Balkans - Muslims became Bosniaks. In pre-Yugoslavian censuses, Sandžak Muslims were ethnically identified mostly as Albanians. We already have a kind of controversial chronology of identification of Muslim Bosniaks as Muslims and then as Bosniaks in BiH. The one with Sandžak Muslims is even more complex and adding it up only makes it harder instead of making genetic comparisons easier, it’s not pragmatic anyway.

    The farthest regional and supraregional Croatian averages have a distance of 8.9 (Herzegovina-Northwest) and 6.0 (South-North) while from the Croatian national average 2.7 and 3.2.

    The farthest regional Serbian averages have a distance of 3.9 (Herzegovina-Republika Srpska), 4.28 (South-Republika Srpska), or 7.1 (Montenegro-Republika Srpska) while from the Serbian national average of 1.7-2.3-4.9

    "Bosniak_Sandžak" average has the farthest distance of staggering 13.2 from "Bosniak_Central_Northeast" and closest distance of only 7.06 from "Bosniak_Southeast" while from the Bosniak "old-new" national average of 9.8 - to "Albanian Gheg" is 8.89 and 9.84 to "Albanian". They are closer to Gheg Albanians than to Bosniaks from BiH. They are obviously not part of the same (Bosniak) ethnic population.
    The issue is that some of the biggest Bosniak nationalists come from Sandžak. Surely at least 80% of them feel no different from their muslim brethern from Bosnia and considerably closer to them than to the neighbouring Serbo-Montenegrins and Albanians. The amount of people who identify as "Bosniak" instead of "Muslim" keeps dropping with every passing census. Heck, the best proof of how successful the assimilation process has been in that region is the very fact that their DNA project is being run by Sandžakians

    And lastly, like everyone (but them) knows, the Bosniak ethnic identity is a modern-day invention that has an exclusive basis in islam. The same criteria that's applied to Serbs, Croats, Albanians, Bulgarians, etc. cannot be applied to them.

  10. #3570
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Last Online
    03-11-2024 @ 04:25 PM
    Ethnicity
    Unknown
    Country
    Antarctica
    Gender
    Posts
    3,910
    Thumbs Up/Down
    Received: 3,464/7
    Given: 1,535/1

    2 Not allowed! Not allowed!

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MoroLP View Post
    Why is Canton Sarajevo added to the Southeast? Doesn't geographically makes more sense having it make Central Bosnian average with Srednjobosanski and Zeničko-Dobojski Canton; Tuzla Canton and other blue area making Northeast average; else is obviously divided between Northwestern and Southeastern average?

    Historical_regions_of_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina.svg

    Bosnia.regions.jpeg

    Bosnia.AIPUB regions.jpg
    I merged them that way to make use of them, because there's very few samples, less than 10 for each of these averages, but with some obvious regional differences.

    When enough samples are collected, I would divide them this way:

    Northern Bosnia (Usora and Soli)
    Central Bosnia (usual definiton)
    Eastern Bosnia (Sarajevo and Podrinje)

    West Herzegovina
    East Herzegovina

    West Krajina
    East Krajina

    West Sandžak
    East Sandžak

    The west/east division used where there's evidence for different genetic clusters. for example, these are both Bosniaks from Herzegovina

    Code:
    a,26.17,23.06,19.93,9.86,16.80,1.88,0.15,0.26,0.35,0.01,1.54,0.00,0.00
    b,22.27,34.00,17.38,5.81,15.60,2.77,0.00,0.42,1.00,0.32,0.00,0.41,0.00
    this can hardly be the same genetic group, if yes, then these are extreme outliers in different directions.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-06-2024, 05:32 AM
  2. Some of my GEDmatch calculators
    By FilhoV in forum Autosomal DNA
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-15-2020, 06:19 PM
  3. Vahaduo GEDMatch calculators
    By taffie in forum Genetics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-28-2020, 11:13 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-20-2020, 01:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •