Croat K13 regional (and national) averages

Some toughts I have:

Croat-Croatia average is unnecessary. It doesn't say much, since lot of Croats from Croatia will be closer to BiH Croats than to northern Croats. One average for all Croats is enough.
I am even against BiH Croat average and wish to merge them with rest of population like Serbian averages have.

Gorski Kotar can't be grouped in Lika because Lika population is Balkanic in origin and culture. They are pretty unrelated. And ofcourse GK is in continental Croatia, even Lika is, it ain't on the sea.
They can be grouped with Istria and Kvarner though, but without Lika.

It's difficult to make satisfactory regions because of shape of Croatia and complex history.

New idea:

South (BiH, Dalmatia & Lika) - basically everything up to Sava river. These people are made of same stock.
West (Istria, Kvarner, Gorski kotar)
East (Slavonia)
North (Zagorje and Central)

+ one common weighted average. This is most natural division not based on political borders, but topography, history and culture.

Even though I'm happy with current averages too. Just curious to hear some feedback.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

Some toughts I have:

Croat-Croatia average is unnecessary. It doesn't say much, since lot of Croats from Croatia will be closer to BiH Croats than to northern Croats. One average for all Croats is enough.
I am even against BiH Croat average and wish to merge them with rest of population like Serbian averages have.

---

I agree, and it should have been removed already, unless Lucas forgot to delete it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

New idea:

South (BiH, Dalmatia & Lika) - basically everything up to Sava river. These people are made of same stock.
West (Istria, Kvarner, Gorski kotar)
East (Slavonia)
North (Zagorje and Central)

+ one common weighted average. This is most natural division not based on political borders, but topography, history and culture.

Even though I'm happy with current averages too. Just curious to hear some feedback.

---

wouldn't the West be artificial, since Gorski Kotar clusters with the north and Istria with the South?

how about West(Istria-Kvarner), South(Lika-Senj+Dalmatia) and a separate one for Bosnian Croats.

because Dalmatia and Herzegovina plot away from each other, and they have large sample sizes, so it's valid.
Dalmatia is a bit closer to Istria than to Herzegovina.
https://i.imgur.com/iBgYLR3.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

I agree, and it should have been removed already, unless Lucas forgot to delete it.




wouldn't the West be artificial, since Gorski Kotar clusters with the north and Istria with the South?

how about West(Istria-Kvarner), South(Lika-Senj+Dalmatia) and a separate one for Bosnian Croats.

because Dalmatia and Herzegovina plot away from each other, and they have large sample sizes, so it's valid.
Dalmatia is a bit closer to Istria than to Herzegovina.
https://i.imgur.com/iBgYLR3.png

---

It was removed, but I see no need to add it back.
Yeah, Gorski Kotar is pretty different from Istria. Kvarner shouldn't be so southern like Istria, but it's undersampled.
Istria has entire Croatian range - both north and south Croat genetic profiles can be found there.

What about my original idea than?

Adriatic - Istria, Kvarner, Dalmatia
Panonnian - current north we have incl. Gorski kotar, because lot of them descend from settled Panonnian Croats from Zagreb area + Slovene-German forest workers. That's why they are genetically north Croat like
and + Slavonia
Dinaric Alps - BiH + Lika. Lika simply belongs with BiH.

Wait, wait, wait... North is unique.

Reason why I'd add Slavonia into Panonnian is because average is as you said weak, so no point to have it as standalone until we get something better?

My labels would align with 3 Croatian cultural zones also described here:

Pannonian, Dinaric and Adriatic

http://croatia.eu/index.php?view=article&id=48&lang=2

It's hard to make geographic labels to perfectly follow genetics anyway, so maybe this could be solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

It was removed, but I see no need to add it back.
Yeah, Gorski Kotar is pretty different from Istria. Kvarner shouldn't be so southern like Istria, but it's undersampled.
Istria has entire Croatian range - both north and south Croat genetic profiles can be found there.

What about my original idea than?

Adriatic - Istria, Kvarner, Dalmatia
Panonnian - current north we have incl. Gorski kotar, because lot of them descend from settled Panonnian Croats from Zagreb area = Slovene-German forest workers. That's why they are genetically north Croat like
Dinaric Alps - BiH + Lika. Lika simply belongs with BiH.

---

i agree, but Slavonia also is actually closer to the south than the north, so i wouldn't add it to a Pannonian region together with the north.
and the Dalmatian Hinterland should be separated from the Coast, if you still have that data. i rembmber you originally made a Coastal and a Hinterland average.

it doesn't make sense that the actual area of the Dinara mountain is Adriatic and not Dinaric.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

i agree, but Slavonia also is actually closer to the south than the north, so i wouldn't add it to a Pannonian region together with the north.
and the Dalmatian Hinterland should be separated from the Coast, if you still have that data. i rembmber you originally made a Coastal and a Hinterland average.

it doesn't make sense that the actual area of the Dinara mountain is Adriatic and not Dinaric.

---

:P

I don't have this average anymore :(
I'm happy with your averages, just speculating.

There is no perfect division.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

New idea:

South (BiH, Dalmatia & Lika) - basically everything up to Sava river. These people are made of same stock.
West (Istria, Kvarner, Gorski kotar)
East (Slavonia)
North (Zagorje and Central)

+ one common weighted average. This is most natural division not based on political borders, but topography, history and culture.

---

Nice, this seems most reasonable considering geography and regional historical and administrative borders and migrations we can agree on. Your original idea also had issues, this tackles well both Gk, Lika and BiH. One national average from this regions is fine with me.

Update: but on second thought, Lika is still a bit confusing because we are again not dealing with geographical proximity. Do we have samples from Senj? It is never perceived and cannot be part of South Croatia. Just look at regionalization maps of Croatia. Lika+Senj are always perceived as part of Western Croatia. Is Lika+Senj so much Southern shifted compared to Istria+Kvarner+Gk? Yet again, we all know that Lika was heavily depopulated with very few natives compared to other regions and was exclusively repopulated from BiH and Dalmatia which are "South" and also at Dinaric Alps... Yeah, you're right, it's best to keep Lika at "South", as you said it's everything up to Sava river and understandable. Is it settled then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

Wouldn't the West be artificial, since Gorski Kotar clusters with the north and Istria with the South?

---

There's nothing artificial about it, that's simply Western Croatia. We need regional averages and not averages done according to populations genetical proximity rather than geographical proximity. As well, current Istria is biased as lacks samples from central and northwestern part which again most probably will be more Northern shifted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

...how about West(Istria-Kvarner), South(Lika-Senj+Dalmatia) and a separate one for Bosnian Croats.

because Dalmatia and Herzegovina plot away from each other, and they have large sample sizes, so it's valid.
Dalmatia is a bit closer to Istria than to Herzegovina.
https://i.imgur.com/iBgYLR3.png

---

Again, it doesn't matter if they plot away from each other, we need regional averages. If, compared to regional averages above, we're going to have a separate average for Bosnian Croats then it's not reasonable anymore to have Lika+Senj in "South" instead of "West" as Lika+Senj has less proximity with Dalmatia then Dalmatia has with BiH (especially Herzegovina), and Dalmatia is the true and only "South" for Croatia anyway.

It's simple or we are going to have a same criteria for all regions or not with perhaps a single exception. The obvious exception we are dealing with is Lika+Senj. Geographically doesn't belong to "South" and must be "West" even if Dalmatia+BiH are or not put together at "South". So, discuss and decide:

1) South (Dalmatia)

2) South (Dalmatia, Lika+Senj)

3) South (Dalmatia, BiH)

4) South (Dalmatia, Lika+Senj, BiH)