Croat K13 regional (and national) averages

[Jana]

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)

[Scandal]

this is a rough map of North Atlantic admixture in ethnic Croats in Croatia:


you think we should respect the borders of the "West Croatia" region, and it should look like this instead?

Why do those differences exist?

[vbnetkhio]

@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.

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?

[Jana]

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.

[vbnetkhio]

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.

[Jana]

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.

[MoroLP]

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.

...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.

[vbnetkhio]

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.

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.

[Jana]

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.

[MoroLP]

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.

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.