Bosnia - haplogroups in three main ethnic groups

Thank you Maciamo for writing down the numbers of percentage of Bosnian ethnic groups, but why isn't Bosniaks seperately written? Also, Herzegovinian is an geographic and not ethnic term (just like Siberians, etc), all ethnic groups, such as Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Roma, etc. are Herzegovinians. I think that you should write the haplogroup percentage of the Bosniak population seperately from Herzegovinians, just such as you did With Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats.
 
Thank you Maciamo for writing down the numbers of percentage of Bosnian ethnic groups, but why isn't Bosniaks seperately written? Also, Herzegovinian is an geographic and not ethnic term (just like Siberians, etc), all ethnic groups, such as Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks, Roma, etc. are Herzegovinians. I think that you should write the haplogroup percentage of the Bosniak population seperately from Herzegovinians, just such as you did With Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats.

Pericic et al. 2005 had separate data for Bosniaks and Herzegovinians, but since they didn't mention what ethnic group was included in Herzegovinians I put it together with the data for Bosniaks.
 
Because the definition of nationality gives them that right. As a group of people that speak the same language, that's been together through some sort of political and cultural development, and that is aware of their own distinctions in contrast to neighbouring nationalities, they have the right to declare a different national identity.

Bosniak national identity was formed in last century or so, and is mainly based on their cultural differences that rely on their religious beliefs. Before 1922. Turkish population was a ruling caste in Bosnia and it populated only cities, so when the fallout occurred they quickly migrated to modern Turkey. The peasants, highlanders and poor people in the cities, all muslim and mainly uneducated (as all in Bosnia at that time) were left in the new country (Kingdom of Yugoslavia) confused. They had problems integrating in new, industrial society and European culture, and in lack of better term were refered as Turks for a long time, although they probably knew they are not real Turks.

During the last Balkan war (1991.) they rightfully fulfilled that void and chosen the Bosniak national identity. It's pretty much logical, but somewhat confusing, especially when we have country called Bosnia and Bosnian people.

As for their ethnicity, they don't say what they are, but DNA analysis will reveal that eventually.
 
Bosniak national identity was formed in last century or so, and is mainly based on their cultural differences that rely on their religious beliefs.

That is false, it dates back to the medieval Kingdom of Bosnia. Read the book "Bosnia: a Short History" by Noel Malcolm, and read the writings of friar Antun Knežević.

As for their ethnicity, they don't say what they are, but DNA analysis will reveal that eventually.



It is already known what we are, we are more European than both Serbs and Croats. Serbs have more neolithic Near-Eastern ancestry, Croats have more Bronze Age Indo-European ancestry from Central Asia.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml


[h=1][/h]
 
1. There were no national states nor national identity in medieval Europe.
2. I stopped reading the book when he connected Serbs and Croats with Iran. Those theories belong to the 20th century :)

3. You have statistics for administrative zones of Serbia, BiH, Croatia and Montenego. You can't get conclusions from there. You can't claim Bosnikas highest with I2 just because BiH has high I2. Bosnikas are not majority in BiH.
 
I wanted to say "why bosnian musliman are called bosniak and not bosnian? Why change name?".
I thought they both mean the same. One is in slavic the other in english, right?
 
1. There were no national states nor national identity in medieval Europe.
There were but different. Take a medieval map and you will see the states/kingdoms/principalities. Most of them correlated well with language and distinct culture and religion.
Some of course did not, but so are exclusions in today's world like Russia (it is federation), Yugoslavia, China, etc.
The biggest disparities between countries and nationalities were during imperial era before WWI. That's why new, after the war, national state europe was so contrasting to europe before the war. Situation was similar in dark ages or medieval period, when europe was filled with many new national identities/countries, after collapse of Roman Empire.
 
1. There were no national states nor national identity in medieval Europe.

That is true to a degree but not fully. There were vague notions of identity, although they weren't nearly as strong as nowadays.

2. I stopped reading the book when he connected Serbs and Croats with Iran. Those theories belong to the 20th century :)

Don't give up on it! I think he might have been mentioning a popular 19th century theory, and not endorsing the theory himself.

3. You have statistics for administrative zones of Serbia, BiH, Croatia and Montenego. You can't get conclusions from there. You can't claim Bosnikas highest with I2 just because BiH has high I2. Bosnikas are not majority in BiH.

Bosniaks were almost a majority during the last census, and by now we are almost certainly a majority. Just compare the population growth rate in Federation with RS's.

But anyways, we shouldn't be hostile. Judging by your "country pic" you are pro socialism and Yugoslavia, yes? I am fine with Yugoslavia, and if one solid ethnic identity had been formed by blending together all of the different groups within it, it would have formed an extremely strong and united country. But that did not happen and instead, certain groups went fascist and genocidal on the other groups. The only proper response is to strengthen your own national identity, until the danger is over.
 
But anyways, we shouldn't be hostile. Judging by your "country pic" you are pro socialism and Yugoslavia, yes? I am fine with Yugoslavia, and if one solid ethnic identity had been formed by blending together all of the different groups within it, it would have formed an extremely strong and united country. But that did not happen and instead, certain groups went fascist and genocidal on the other groups. The only proper response is to strengthen your own national identity, until the danger is over.

U can't make again Yugoslavia.
Why you are at odds with each of you.
Just because you are of the same ethnicity (Slavic) does not mean that you have to be in one state.
If it were so then Ireland, Scotland, France, north Italy should unite and form a new state called "celtic".
 
U can't make again Yugoslavia.
Why you are at odds with each of you.
Just because you are of the same ethnicity (Slavic) does not mean that you have to be in one state.
If it were so then Ireland, Scotland, France, north Italy should unite and form a new state called "celtic".

I never said that. I was just describing a hypothetical scenario where all the former Yugoslav people mixed and assimilated each other into one big group. I have no idea how you got out of what I wrote that I wanted Yugoslavia to return. What Yugoslavia was and what the hypothetical new country would be, are completely different.
 
I wanted to say "why bosnian musliman are called bosniak and not bosnian? Why change name?".

I thought they both mean the same. One is in slavic the other in english, right?

No, I explained but maybe should detailed.

Terms Bosnians and Bosniacs (I think it is more correct than Bosniaks) are different.

Bosnians are inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats who live in Bosnia and Herzegovina all are Bosnians. It is similar as Belgians are inhabitants of Belgium.

Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of the Republic of Serbian and the BH federation (plus district of Brchko). Republic of Serbian and BH federation are two political entitiets. It iis similar as Belgium which consists of the Flemish region (Flanders), the Walloon region (Walloonia) and the city of Brussels.

In Republic of Serbian live mostly Serbs, in BH federation live mostly Bosniacs and Croats. It is similar as in Flemish region live mostly Flemish people, in Walloon region live mostly Walloon people and Germans.

The term Bosniacs refers to the Bosniac ethnicity, and Bosniacs live not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also in Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro, etc. Terms Bosnian Muslims or Muslims (with capital letter M) are not adequate because Bosniacs don't want to use this term. Muslims are believers, islam is one of the world's religions. Bosniacs are an ethnic group, they are Muslims by faith but there are Bosniacs who are atheists.
 
That is false, it dates back to the medieval Kingdom of Bosnia. Read the book "Bosnia: a Short History" by Noel Malcolm, and read the writings of friar Antun Knežević.




It is already known what we are, we are more European than both Serbs and Croats. Serbs have more neolithic Near-Eastern ancestry, Croats have more Bronze Age Indo-European ancestry from Central Asia.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
No u are not more European then Serbs and Croats, not even close. All three are European. As for what u call neolithic is is older then what u falsely believe to be " more European" . If we follow ur " Internet nationalists" logic the most European are the Croats, because of the higher I2a, but it does not work like this.
First in the Balkan u have I2a, then come E-V13,J2b2,some T and R1b-HT35 in the end come R1a and other R1b. The fact that u r I2a means nothing maybe all man in tjhe family of ur Mom and all other man in the family of ur Dad are E-V13 and J1 and N1c, u can not trace all ur lines, not even close. I am astonished of Albanians and Yugoslavs that try wrongly to claim history and genes and more European. The difference between u and Croats and Serbs is that ur ancestors changed their religion. They did it for different reasons:
1. They were a sect called Bogomil and they were being tortured by Catholics and Orthodox people because in the Middle Ages, sect was seen as worse then not believing or being Muslim, so they though instead of being also tortured by Muslim we can become one and have dominant position
2. They change their religion for economical reasons and so their children and not being stolen for sex slaves in harems and enichars
3. They did it because the Muslims said either u become Muslim or u be tortured and killed
All of the above things happened in the Balkan in the case of Bosnian the 1 is the biggest reason. Before u become Muslims u were almost identical to Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croats.
I find it annoying and disturbing and propaganda to say Bosnians are more European then Croats and Serbs.
In cultural sense u are less European, because u r Muslims and connected with Turks and Arabs
Qua look u are more or less the same dark haired Dinaric people with tanned European white skin, often blue eyes really tall.
Qua genes u r more or less the same, differences are negligible.
Also there is no good sample on Bosnians or Serbs, only on Croats.
And for the last time E-V13 is older then all genes in the Balkan except I2a. Regarding R1b-HT-35 and J2b2 and most of G2a maybe it is more or less the same age.
It is nice that u r interested in genetics but u should understand it and make good tests. What test have u made? 23andme is the best, regarding being I2a, let me give u an possible example a I2a Austrians(it exist in them) in 1601 married a Chinese woman and their child marries an English women and the child a Japanese woman and the child an Arab girl and the child a Bulgarian girl and the child a Swedish girl and the child a Mexican girl etc.etc, the direct male line is I2a, but for the rest the picture is totally different.
I hope we can talk genetics and not propaganda of nationalists from the West Balkans
 
No, I explained but maybe should detailed.

Terms Bosnians and Bosniacs (I think it is more correct than Bosniaks) are different.

Bosnians are inhabitants of Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore Serbs, Bosniacs and Croats who live in Bosnia and Herzegovina all are Bosnians. It is similar as Belgians are inhabitants of Belgium.

Bosnia and Herzegovina consists of the Republic of Serbian and the BH federation (plus district of Brchko). Republic of Serbian and BH federation are two political entitiets. It iis similar as Belgium which consists of the Flemish region (Flanders), the Walloon region (Walloonia) and the city of Brussels.

In Republic of Serbian live mostly Serbs, in BH federation live mostly Bosniacs and Croats. It is similar as in Flemish region live mostly Flemish people, in Walloon region live mostly Walloon people and Germans.

The term Bosniacs refers to the Bosniac ethnicity, and Bosniacs live not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also in Croatia, Slovenia, Serbia, Montenegro, etc. Terms Bosnian Muslims or Muslims (with capital letter M) are not adequate because Bosniacs don't want to use this term. Muslims are believers, islam is one of the world's religions. Bosniacs are an ethnic group, they are Muslims by faith but there are Bosniacs who are atheists.
Ok but why called bosniaks and not bosnian??
I have friends serb and he explained to me: "bosnian are bosnian christians and Bosniaks are bosnian musliman".
I know this about bosnian.
I think is no sense "invented" the term for united all ethnic group.
Because french are inhabitants of france, we italian are inhabitants of italy and in bosnia and herzegovina who are the rlly inhabitants?? Bosniaks?Croats?Serbs?
 
If we follow ur " Internet nationalists" logic the most European are the Croats, because of the higher I2a

Croatians overall have lower I2a. Croatians in Bosnia are Bosnians who changed their national identity during the 19th century. Read what the Catholic friar Antun Knežević said about the process of Croatization and Serbianization in Bosnia due to nationalist movements in surrounding countries. Btw what I wrote about us being more European was a bit crude I admit, but it was warranted due to the things that the person I was responding to had suggested. He wrote: "As for their ethnicity, they don't say what they are, but DNA analysis will reveal that eventually." That implies lots of false and offensive things.

What test have u made? 23andme is the best, regarding being I2a, let me give u an possible example a I2a Austrians(it exist in them) in 1601 married a Chinese woman and their child marries an English women and the child a Japanese woman and the child an Arab girl and the child a Bulgarian girl and the child a Swedish girl and the child a Mexican girl etc.etc, the direct male line is I2a, but for the rest the picture is totally different.
I hope we can talk genetics and not propaganda of nationalists from the West Balkans

Patrilineal descent is everything in patriarchal societies. The only true heirs to a throne are the male sons, likewise the only true descendants of an ancient people are those descendant from them from their male side.

Before u become Muslims u were almost identical to Orthodox Serbs and Catholic

We NEVER considered ourselves Serb or Croat, that is the propaganda my friend. All the old Bosnjanin/Bosnian/Bosniak documents refer to us as the "dobri Bosnjani" or the good Bosnians.
 
Ok but why called bosniaks and not bosnian??
I have friends serb and he explained to me: "bosnian are bosnian christians and Bosniaks are bosnian musliman".
I know this about bosnian.

Well, in modern-day Bosnia: Bosnian refers to citizenship, Bosniak refers to ethnicity. Pretty simple.
 
There were but different. Take a medieval map and you will see the states/kingdoms/principalities. Most of them correlated well with language and distinct culture and religion.

I agree with that. I just like to regard it as ethnic identity. You can read my BiH theory just below.


That is true to a degree but not fully. There were vague notions of identity, although they weren't nearly as strong as nowadays.

It's obvous that most of contemporary Croatian or Serbian national identity is derived from medieval Kingdoms. Even more, crucial cultural aspects of that identity are even older, probably from tribal times. Disregarding religion, all of the three nationalities share that very similar cultural background. Problem occurred in the way they were "depaganized". Christianization was almost process of amalgamation, through which Serbs, Croats and Bosnians kept their ethnic identity very well. On the other hand, Islamization was enforced by the invaders and was a cultural shock that resulted in discontinuity between Bosnian and Bosniak cultural identity.

Yes, I guess there was a strong ethnic awareness in medieval Bosnia that could have resulted in a real Bosnian national identity, only if Ottomans didn't invade us. But, from this position even Bosnian Serbs or Croats seem to me more related with it, than Bosniaks are.

I suppose there will be with different regional cultural theory, from you or other members of Eupedia.

Don't give up on it! I think he might have been mentioning a popular 19th century theory, and not endorsing the theory himself.
I'll give it a try then.

Bosniaks were almost a majority during the last census, and by now we are almost certainly a majority. Just compare the population growth rate in Federation with RS's.

Ok, I'll believe you without checking, because I know that Muslims generally have higher birth rate at present.

Anyway, what I was trying to say: For example, Dalmatia is an ancient territory, has been with Venice for centuries, has been a separate province in Austro-Hungarian empire, and a kingdom. If history was regarded in 1945. there could have easily been formed a republic of Dalmatia in Yugoslavia, and now it would have been a separate state. If we did DNA analysis in that country of Dalmatia they would show more I2b than anywhere else in Balkans. Than they would be able to say: "OK, you Bosnians are half-Dalmatians, but Serbs and Croats are just mongrels". And that all could have happened very easily. They had very strong historical and cultural arguments to defend that position.

So, it's of no point to discuss who is majority, but to find traces of original Bosnian ethnic identity, because without it they just fall under Serb or Croats. But watch for details:

DNA analysis confirm that modern Serbian or Croatian national identity is vague at best, and history suggests that it's been mostly defined with religious orientation. Where have you seen a Catholic Serb? Or Orthodox Bosniak? Even Serbian Muslims north of Kosovo started declaring themselves as Bosniaks. Would I be wrong to guess that they are not I2/R1 in majority, and that they would destroy your Y-DNA statistics once when they get included. Should I remind you that E-V13 have even higher birth rate habits than Bosnikas, and that in 50 years there may be more Bosniaks near Kosovo, than in todays Bosnia? So, everything suggests that Bosniak national identity is religion based as same.

Croatians and Serbs claim their national identities are based on Croats' and Serbs' ethnicity but we know it isn't so. In the end, it's of no difference if Bosniaks really succeed Bosnian identity because even if it was true, it would still be wrong(in it's merit), as it is wrong for other two nationalities.

But anyways, we shouldn't be hostile. Judging by your "country pic" you are pro socialism and Yugoslavia, yes? I am fine with Yugoslavia, and if one solid ethnic identity had been formed by blending together all of the different groups within it, it would have formed an extremely strong and united country. But that did not happen and instead, certain groups went fascist and genocidal on the other groups. The only proper response is to strengthen your own national identity, until the danger is over.

That picture showed up automatically, I didn't put it there. Anyway, Yugoslavia is for sure my second choice, and I wouldn't have anything against living in country like that. It was just like EU is today, and there was no reason to for it to be destroyed.DNA analysis show Yugoslavians are strongly related. It's even ironic how that, so called, artificial country in the end showed up more logical that some had hoped for. If we hadn't accepted Middle Eastern Religions that divided us, we would have been a very strong pagan Yugoslavia by now.

Well, in modern-day Bosnia: Bosnian refers to citizenship, Bosniak refers to ethnicity. Pretty simple.

You mean nationality. There is still no evidence of Bosnian/Bosniak ethnicity. Nowhere are they mentioned as a tribe.
 
That is false, it dates back to the medieval Kingdom of Bosnia. Read the book "Bosnia: a Short History" by Noel Malcolm, and read the writings of friar Antun Knežević.

It is already known what we are, we are more European than both Serbs and Croats. Serbs have more neolithic Near-Eastern ancestry, Croats have more Bronze Age Indo-European ancestry from Central Asia.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

Let’s talk about the facts. Serbs are typical Balkan population. You can see MDS scaling in many scientific papers.

You can see difference between Bosniacs and Serbs in Serbia (for Bosnian Serbs is small sample).

I1 is twice higher in Serbia (Serbs 8,5, Bosniacs 4)
I2a is for 2/3 higher in Bosniacs (Serbs 33, Bosniacs 56)
R1a is same (Serbs 16%, Bosniacs 16%)
R1b is much higher in Serbs (Serbs 8%, Bosniacs 3%)
J2 is twice higher in Serbs (Serbs 8%, Bosniacs 3,5%)
E1b1b1a2 is higher in Serbs (Serbs 18%, Bosniacs 10%).

We can compare with any east European nation, for example Belarus, who is closer to them Bosniacs or Serbs.

Bosniacs have much more I2a and Belarus have much more R1a. But we can see the sum I2a+R1a, scientists often relate these two haplogroups.

Bosniacs have 72%, and Belarus have 68,5%.

But Serbs have less than 50%, accurate 49%. You can see for other Balkan nations, Romanians have 45,5%, Macedonians* (Noveski et al.) 41,7%, Montenegrins 37%, Bulgarians 37%, Tosk Albanians about 29%, Greeks 25%.

*Macedonians from former Yugoslav republic, not Aegean Macedonians in Greece

You can see for J2. Bosniacs have 3,5% and Belarus have 2,5%.

Serbs have 8%, Montenegrins 9%, Macedonians 10% (Noveski et al.), Bulgarians 11%, Romanians 13,5%, Tosk Albanians 23%, Greeks 23%.

You can see for R1b, E1b1b1a2 etc. Bosniacs and Belarus are much different compared to Serbs, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Romanians, Bulgarians, Tosk Albanians or Greeks.

And who are closer to east Europeans and who are closer to other Balkan peoples?

Conclusion is that Serbs are similar to other Balkan peoples and Bosnicas are closer to east European peoples.

But Bosniacs are closer to other Balkan peoples compared to Croats in mainland (Croatia). Also Bosniacs are closer other Balkan peoples compared to Geg Albanians.

Bosniacs are very specific for Balkans, they are untypical, due to the very high I2a and much lower R1b, E1b1b1a2, J2 etc. compared with other Balkan peoples.
 
I never said that. I was just describing a hypothetical scenario where all the former Yugoslav people mixed and assimilated each other into one big group. I have no idea how you got out of what I wrote that I wanted Yugoslavia to return. What Yugoslavia was and what the hypothetical new country would be, are completely different.
Just see your country as unstable.
In your country there are 3 different presidents.
If they would do so for all country of the world then there would be 10 presidents in Italy.
If Bosnia and Erzegovins is of the Bosniaks the Bosniaks amministrate Bosnia and Erzegovina and for reffer to people of Bosnia and Erzegovina we use the term "bosniaks".
Croats and Serb are just emigrants.
 
@Garrick

Yes, but that is not a Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian nor Albanian trait. It is much older than any national, ethnic or tribal identity, so it's a waste of time to make connections at this moment. What is more important, the percentage of Hg indicates just survival rate in certain area, and it's diversity is more indicative of it's origin.

@Marko94 :facepalm:
 

This thread has been viewed 53021 times.

Back
Top