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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

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.

---

well that's where we disagree, but you and Feiichy are the Croatian members here and you should decide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

well that's where we disagree, but you and Feiichy are the Croatian members here and you should decide.

---

No worries, it's your opinion, but it is strange we disagree on such a thing because it's simply factually wrong. I didn't expect that from you because you know better than that. Where's any logic artifically putting Gk in "North" average with Zagorje+Central while saying it's artificial to place Gk in "West" average where exclusively belongs? Strange thinking.

Your opinion regarding "South" is welcome.

Jesus Christ just make

Southern Croatia (Dalmatia)
Lika
Istria, Primorje and Gorski Kotar
Central and Northern Croatia
Eastern Croatia (Slavonia)
B&H Croats

Maybe it will help. Regional west Balkan samples in K36 (not identical sheet like in K13 because some samples exist only in K13 form). As we see there is Croat and Serb cluster separated. But Croat join Central European cluster which is expected. BTW for Istria average I added to existing kit my own sample which was not posted yet maybe it is too Italian shifted.


https://i.imgur.com/KS5sIKE.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

No worries, it's your opinion, but it is strange we disagree on such a thing because it's simply factually wrong. I didn't expect that from you because you know better than that. Where's any logic artifically putting Gk in "North" average with Zagorje+Central while saying it's artificial to place Gk in "West" average where exclusively belongs? Strange thinking.

Your opinion regarding "South" is welcome.

---

the question is what kind of averages do you want to make?
do you want to make an autosomal study of Croats by geographical regions, or do you want to make averages useful for the Vahaduo/oracle?
i think those 2 should be separated.

btw, do you use Excel?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

the question is what kind of averages do you want to make?
do you want to make an autosomal study of Croats by geographical regions, or do you want to make averages useful for the Vahaduo/oracle?
i think those 2 should be separated.

btw, do you use Excel?

---

Explain the difference. I think we need, as in common expectation, to have regional averages within factual regionalization. What kind of results these regional averages are gonna be it's up to the samples of individual regions - simple as that. Anything else is artificial interference in the aim to be useful, while we need faithful and truthful. What's the point of calculating percent of regional population to create a weighted regional and national average if counties and their regions aren't within their borders (and Gk is in a depopulation process anyway as people are moving to Rijeka more than a generation ago)? If people start using current averages what can they deduce about regional origin? Basically nothing because is misleading. Yes, I use Excel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

Explain the difference. I think we need, as in common expectation, to have regional averages within factual regionalization. What kind of results these regional averages are gonna be it's up to the samples of individual regions - simple as that. Anything else is artificial interference in the aim to be useful, while we need faithful and truthful. What's the point of calculating percent of regional population to create a weighted regional and national average if counties and their regions aren't within their borders (and Gk is in a depopulation process anyway as people are moving to Rijeka more than a generation ago)? If people start using current averages what can they deduce about regional origin? Basically nothing because is misleading. Yes, I use Excel.

---

Hey, Vbn is just trying to help. He made similar division for Serbian averages too.
It's very nice of him he does all this, because I can do averages only manually and can't do weighted ones at all.

So, would you agree on south (bih,dalm,lika), west(istra,kvarner,gk), north(zagorje,central) and east(slavonia) plus one common average?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

Explain the difference. I think we need, as in common expectation, to have regional averages within factual regionalization. What kind of results these regional averages are gonna be it's up to the samples of individual regions - simple as that. Anything else is artificial interference in the aim to be useful, while we need faithful and truthful. What's the point of calculating percent of regional population to create a weighted regional and national average if counties and their regions aren't within their borders (and Gk is in a depopulation process anyway as people are moving to Rijeka more than a generation ago)? If people start using current averages what can they deduce about regional origin? Basically nothing because is misleading. Yes, I use Excel.

---

this is a rough map of North Atlantic admixture in ethnic Croats in Croatia:
https://i.imgur.com/WwA3LTU.jpg

you think we should respect the borders of the "West Croatia" region, and it should look like this instead?
https://i.imgur.com/7v3eeUL.jpeg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

Hey, Vbn is just trying to help. He made similar division for Serbian averages too.
It's very nice of him he does all this, because I can do averages only manually and can't do weighted ones at all.

So, would you agree on south (bih,dalm,lika), west(istra,kvarner,gk), north(zagorje,central) and east(slavonia) plus one common average?

---

I think Gorski Kotar should be north, it's actually the best source we have for northern Croat genetics. The individual results range from Austrian-like to West Ukrainian-like and all combinations in between, because it's a large sample. The NW and Central data is much poorer, Gorski kotar fills in the gaps when you merge them.

Reply with quote somehow isn't working.

@Feiichy, we're all thankful and respect Vbn's effort, but it's done in a strange manner. If baffles me then it's even more baffling to those who are less informed how these averages were calculated. Yes, I agree to those averages.

@Vbn, yes because West Croatia is West Croatia. Gk never was and never will be North, South or East. It is part of Western Croatia. If Gk samples are too many compared to others from Primorsko-goranska and Istarska county then they should be calculated accordingly to their population's percentage within the region (it's cca. 8% in Primorsko-goranska, together with Istarska is cca. 4%).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

I think Gorski Kotar should be north, it's actually the best source we have for northern Croat genetics. The individual results range from Austrian-like to West Ukrainian-like and all combinations in between, because it's a large sample. The NW and Central data is much poorer, Gorski kotar fills in the gaps when you merge them.

---

You know why adding Gorski Kotar to west would make sense? Because I think natives from Istria (non štokavian newcomers and those that aren't mixed with Italians in west coast) and especially Kvarner will be more northern as we get more samples. This region had Celtic settlement, it's bordering Slovenia, I just think it's undertested so far or we have too little natives tested. Maybe I'm wrong but they should be naturally closer to north than south because native Croats there live there since initial Slavic settlement, they never went south. And they look often NE Italian, Slovenian or Austrian like (lot of Norids and Alpinids), so I think with more samples west should become more northern shifted (primarly trough increased north atlantic)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

this is a rough map of North Atlantic admixture in ethnic Croats in Croatia:
https://i.imgur.com/WwA3LTU.jpg

you think we should respect the borders of the "West Croatia" region, and it should look like this instead?
https://i.imgur.com/7v3eeUL.jpeg

---

Why do those differences exist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

@Vbn, yes because West Croatia is West Croatia. Gk never was and never will be North, South or East. It is part of Western Croatia.

---

I simply went by genetic criteria, not geographic. I did the same for the Serb averages.
By "North Croat" i didn't mean the population of the geographical region of North Croatia, I meant the genetic cluster of Gorski Kotar, Central and North Croatia. (which you can see on this PCA)
But North Croat is a nicer and a more neutral name then "Kajkavian Croat", or something like that.

Germany is currenlty divided into West, East and North in the spreadsheet. Those are also genetic clusters, and not how Germany is usually geographically divided, and it works great for the Germans. I wanted to make something like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

If Gk samples are too many compared to others from Primorsko-goranska and Istarska county then they should be calculated accordingly to their population's percentage within the region (it's cca. 8% in Primorsko-goranska, together with Istarska is cca. 4%).

---

I used these numbers for weighting:
Lika-Krbava 94663
Istria-Kvarner 263624
Gorski Kotar 76532

They are from somewhere between 1910 and 1930. Imo it makes no sense to weigh by current populations, because, for example, our genetic data for Istria-Kvarner includes only pure,rural people from there, while the current population number for Istria-Kvarner includes settlers from all over, so those 2 aren't the same variable and shouldn't be multiplied, i think we can atleast agree on that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

I used these numbers for weighting:
Lika-Krbava 94663
Istria-Kvarner 263624
Gorski Kotar 76532

They are from somewhere between 1910 and 1930. Imo it makes no sense to weigh by current populations, because, for example, our genetic data for Istria-Kvarner includes only pure,rural people from there, while the current population number for Istria-Kvarner includes settlers from all over, so those 2 aren't the same variable and shouldn't be multiplied, i think we can atleast agree on that?

---

Yes, absolutely. For example in Rijeka metro region vast majority of population isn't native to Kvarner and wouldn't be qualified to be included in database for western Croatia. Similar situation is in Pula.
Your numbers are very fine, modern distribution should not be used at any cost!

Please continue to do weighted data as you did until now, don't change anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

You know why adding Gorski Kotar to west would make sense? Because I think natives from Istria (non štokavian newcomers and those that aren't mixed with Italians in west coast) and especially Kvarner will be more northern as we get more samples. This region had Celtic settlement, it's bordering Slovenia, I just think it's undertested so far or we have too little natives tested. Maybe I'm wrong but they should be naturally closer to north than south because native Croats there live there since initial Slavic settlement, they never went south. And they look often NE Italian, Slovenian or Austrian like (lot of Norids and Alpinids), so I think with more samples west should become more northern shifted (primarly trough increased north atlantic)

---

yeah, that makes sense. and the north/central Croat sample isn't bad on it's own, it would just be more valid with Gorski Kotar in there.

i noticed some more samples on gedmatch which are very probably Istrian, i'll check their results and post them, maybe we can make some conclusions based on them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universe

Why do those differences exist?

---

It's either:

A) north-central Croatia pre-Slavic population was not Balkan like but central Euro like (more Celtic than Illyrian)
B) north-central Croatia received central Euro admixture trough centuries of Hungarian and Habsburg rule
C) combination of both

I would say A is most likely because this is only region unaffected with Ottoman era which didn't have any population changes more or less.
Slavonian (east Croatia) population has very different history for example, they are all post-Ottoman settlers from Bosnia mixed with assimilated minorities.
That's why Slavonians scoring closer to Bosnians than to north Croats makes sense, unless they have recent Czech or German etc admix.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

I used these numbers for weighting:
Lika-Krbava 94663
Istria-Kvarner 263624
Gorski Kotar 76532

They are from somewhere between 1910 and 1930. Imo it makes no sense to weigh by current populations, because, for example, our genetic data for Istria-Kvarner includes only pure, rural people from there, while the current population number for Istria-Kvarner includes settlers from all over, so those 2 aren't the same variable and shouldn't be multiplied, i think we can atleast agree on that?

---

From where did you get these numbers? Maybe we could agree, but all these regions had substantial emigration events till 1940s and after 1940s, the oldest samples probably are from late 1930s and early 1940s, while for others from later decades already was happening intermixing between different parts of a region.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

...i noticed some more samples on gedmatch which are very probably Istrian, i'll check their results and post them, maybe we can make some conclusions based on them.

---

Ok, now will check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

From where did you get these numbers?

---

Gorski Kotar:
https://p-portal.net/nestajanje-srba-u-gorskom-kotaru/

Lika:
https://p-portal.net/kretanje-stanov...regijama-lika/

i'm not sure for Istria-Kvarner, maybe i took it from from here, i probably did Istarska + Primirosko Goranska minus Gorski Kotar.

https://i.imgur.com/SxrfAFW.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

Maybe we could agree, but all these regions had substantial emigration events till 1940s and after 1940s, the oldest samples probably are from late 1930s and early 1940s, while for others from later decades already was happening intermixing between different parts of a region.

Ok, now will check.

---

Our samples are supposed to have all great-grandparents from the same region. One great-grandparent from a different region is tolerated. The great-grandparents of all our samples were very likely born before ww2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

Our samples are supposed to have all great-grandparents from the same region. One great-grandparent from a different region is tolerated. The great-grandparents of all our samples were very likely born before ww2.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

Gorski Kotar:
https://p-portal.net/nestajanje-srba-u-gorskom-kotaru/


i'm not sure for Istria-Kvarner, maybe i took it from from here, i probably did Istarska + Primirosko Goranska minus Gorski Kotar.

https://i.imgur.com/SxrfAFW.png

---

Fine, let's say you took 1910., but did you take into consideration only Croats or all population? In that census in Gk were 76,532 people, but Croats were 49,874, however:

"I used these numbers for weighting:
Lika-Krbava 94663
Istria-Kvarner 263624
Gorski Kotar 76532"

1910. year: Istarska (236,981) + Primorsko-goranska (239,354) - Gorski Kotar (76,532) = 399,803? How you 263,624?

How you got Lika-Krbava "94,663" because that number is not mentioned in the source? Obviously isn't general population census (188,230), but neither is of Croats (82,432) in 1910.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

Fine, let's say you took 1910., but did you take into consideration only Croats or all population? In that census in Gk were 76.532 people, but Croats were 49.874, however:

---

yes, sorry , i posted the wrong number, just the Croat number should be used.

"I used these numbers for weighting:
Lika-Krbava 94663
Istria-Kvarner 263624
Gorski Kotar 76532"

1910. year: Istarska (236,981) + Primorsko-goranska (239,354) - Gorski Kotar (76,532) = 399,803?

How you got Lika-Krbava "94,663" because that number is not mentioned in the source?[/QUOTE]

I think i also added the Senj area, because the average is called Lika-Senj.

For Istria-Kvarner i have this data saved, i can't find the source now. I think these are just ethnic Croats, without Italians etc.

Modruš-Rijeka 68168
Krk-Kastav 27340
Istria 168116
Istria-Kvarner(total) 263624

here are some more sources (wit ethnic data)
http://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G1921/Pdf/G19214001.pdf
http://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G1931/Pdf/G19314001.pdf

these are probably Istrian. the first 3 based on incomplete family trees, the last 2 on their surname.

North_Atlantic	Baltic	West_Med	West_Asian	East_Med	Red_Sea	South_Asian	East_Asian	Siberian	Amerindian	Oceanian	Northeast_Afr	Sub0Saharan
29.38	28.82	16.08	7.63	13.58	1.33	1.54	1.01	0	0	0.64	0	0
29.76	28.04	16.11	6.98	16.03	0.54	1.39	0.58	0	0.21	0.36	0	0
30.49	30.87	14.52	9.96	9.72	2.8	0.73	0	0	0	0.47	0.42	0
22.2	28.71	16.24	10.58	16.57	1.27	1.62	1.3	0	0.61	0.57	0.32	0
26.98	30	17.3	9.5	11.81	1.44	2.52	0	0.37	0.09	0	0	0

they are all within the current Istria-Kvarner range, and Istrians still look similar to Lika and Dalmatia Croats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vbnetkhio

these are probably Istrian. the first 3 based on incomplete family trees, the last 2 on their surname.

North_Atlantic	Baltic	West_Med	West_Asian	East_Med	Red_Sea	South_Asian	East_Asian	Siberian	Amerindian	Oceanian	Northeast_Afr	Sub0Saharan
29.38	28.82	16.08	7.63	13.58	1.33	1.54	1.01	0	0	0.64	0	0
29.76	28.04	16.11	6.98	16.03	0.54	1.39	0.58	0	0.21	0.36	0	0
30.49	30.87	14.52	9.96	9.72	2.8	0.73	0	0	0	0.47	0.42	0
22.2	28.71	16.24	10.58	16.57	1.27	1.62	1.3	0	0.61	0.57	0.32	0
26.98	30	17.3	9.5	11.81	1.44	2.52	0	0.37	0.09	0	0	0

they are all within the current Istria-Kvarner range, and Istrians still look similar to Lika and Dalmatia Croats.

---

But, notice north Atlantic is higher than Baltic in first two! And equal in third, also high. That seem typically west Istrian IMO.
If Moro agrees, we can add them to averages.

Istrians are kinda southern shifted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Insuperable

Istrians are kinda southern shifted.

---

Only western coast most likely. Moro has few samples from inland Istria which are much more northern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MoroLP

What happened to all the regional averages? East is Slavonia? North is Zagorje + Međimurje? Littoral is confusing, is it well Littoral? What happened to Dalmatia then or it includes both Littoral (+Istria?) and the Dalmatian region? The northern and southern Adriatic coast shouldn't be put together. Names are a bit confusing, uncommon for Croatian regions. What is the sample size? New averages:

Croat_Bosnia&Herzegovina,25.53,32.41,15.86,8.50,13 .91,1.38,0.59,0.25,0.56,0.46,0.35,0.04,0.11
Croat_East,27.42,34.37,13.89,8.65,11.79,1.56,0.03, 0.14,1.16,0.62,0.35,0.02,0.01
Croat_Littoral,26.81,32.09,15.78,8.11,13.54,1.40,0 .33,0.24,0.56,0.49,0.39,0.13,0.11
Croat_north,31.28,33.43,14.32,7.22,9.91,1.18,0.61, 0.31,0.54,0.59,0.35,0.13,0.13
Croat,28.38,33.18,14.95,7.74,11.78,1.42,0.50,0.26, 0.56,0.53,0.45,0.10,0.13

---

Aren't Croats from Herzegovina and Dalmatia genetically the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

Aren't Croats from Herzegovina and Dalmatia genetically the same?

---

Very very similar, but if we're being nitpicky Dalmatians got bit higher North Atlantic and West Med while Herzegovians got bit higher Baltic and East Med on average.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

Very very similar, but if we're being nitpicky Dalmatians got bit higher North Atlantic and West Med while Herzegovians got bit higher Baltic and East Med on average.

---

I meant why not group them together as "Croat_South" or something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mingle

I meant why not group them together as "Croat_South" or something?

---

That's the idea, to group Dalmatia, Lika and BiH as Croat_South.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stearsolina

But, notice north Atlantic is higher than Baltic in first two! And equal in third, also high. That seem typically west Istrian IMO.
If Moro agrees, we can add them to averages.

---

All of them can be included in the "West" average. Four out of five can be included in the sub-regional Istrian average as well, the exception is third kit (NA 30.49 / Baltic 30.87) because is paternally from Istria while maternally from Kvarner / Slovenia. With the addition of these four kits, what's the current number of Istrian samples? 11?

Other shared kits seemingly or were not Croatian or were not Istrian but from Kvarner and Gk (Delnice) so these should be added to "West" as well if aren't already.