Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your ancestors came from Finland means exactly what?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Your ancestors came from Finland means exactly what?

    Hi,

    A breakup of my atDNA ancestry estimate shows the following:

    Finland 54%
    Scandinavia 27%
    West and Central Europe 13%
    East Europe 6%

    I'd really like to know how this Finland portion is determined and what is meant by it.

    FTDNA does provide a brief intro (and somewhat questionable review) of the prehistory, but not mentioning that Finland was populated by mainly two main populations, Finno Ugric tribes from the south east and proto-Germanic/Norman tribes from the south west around 2500-3000 years ago. This is the reason 58% of Finnish men belong to the Finnish haplogroup N1c, while 28% to the Scandinavian I1-M253, along with 10% R1a and R1b. (A third smaller population are the indigenous Sami). Of the five Nordic I1 subclades, two are mainly found in Finland (L258/257 and L300) and these are about 3000 years old. An additional migration begun when the area that is today Finland became part of Sweden around 12th century, which constitutes about 5-10% of I1 in Finland mainly in (Swedish-speaking) Ostrobothnia.

    My point is that all the people with the Finnish I1 have lived since prehistoric times in the area that is today Finland and particularly the westerns part of the country. In Satakunta over 50% of the men belong to the I1 haplogroup. My understanding is that most – if not all of the migrations from the west – are counted as "Finnish". Would it not be more honest and accurate to count these as having originally come from Scandinavia – particularly as we know the ancestry of these people did not originate in east Asia around Ural? At least it should be clarified much, much better.

    Moreover, FTDNA instead comes up with some obfuscating and erroneous summary: "Genetically, however, influence from centuries of occupation and invasion is illustrated in the close genetic relatedness between populations in the Finland cluster and populations from Russia and Scandinavia." This is wrong on several accounts. First, there wasn't any country in what now constitutes Finland before the area became the eastern part of Sweden, so "occupation and invasion" are wrong terms and "migrations" would be more accurate. Second, the main reason for the genetic relatedness with Scandinavia is that mainly two populations have inhabited that areas that are now Finland and one was from the west. Third, very little of the people in Finland cluster with the main population of Russia, aside from smaller Finno Uralic populations like Udmurts, Komis, Maris, etc.

    Anyway, for anyone interested in prehistoric migrations into Finland, Eupedia has much better and more detailed explanations:

    https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...NA.shtml#suomi
    https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplo...1c_Y-DNA.shtml

  • #2
    Perhaps I should add that I'm slightly confused about the "Finnish" part since I come from an Swedish-speaking area in Finland that was historically endogamous (and were people rarely moved), in villages where 98-100% only spoke Swedish as late as 1900. Finally, that I hardly have any Finnish-speaking ancestor in a family tree of over 5.000 ancestors. My ancestors have essentially all have come from the same Swedish-speaking area of Ostrobothnia, aside for a few ancestors that migrated from Sweden. My guess is that there must have been some Finnish-speaking ancestors prehistorically, but 54%?
    Last edited by Genealogic; 1st February 2019, 05:00 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Genealogic View Post
      Perhaps I should add that I'm slightly confused about the "Finnish" part since I come from an Swedish-speaking area in Finland that was historically endogamous (and were people rarely moved), in villages where 98-100% only spoke Swedish as late as 1900. Finally, that I hardly have any Finnish-speaking ancestor in a family tree of over 5.000 ancestors. My ancestors have essentially all have come from the same Swedish-speaking area of Ostrobothnia, aside for a few ancestors that migrated from Sweden. My guess is that there must have been some Finnish-speaking ancestors prehistorically, but 54%?
      Please don't take your autosomal DNA results as gospel. Pay attention to your matches, not your ethnicity estimates. Estimating ethnicity is honestly a strange thing to pursue as ethnicity is fluid and isn't dependent on genetics. DNA does not equal ethnicity.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by spruithean View Post

        Please don't take your autosomal DNA results as gospel. Pay attention to your matches, not your ethnicity estimates. Estimating ethnicity is honestly a strange thing to pursue as ethnicity is fluid and isn't dependent on genetics. DNA does not equal ethnicity.
        I'd say that I very much concur with spruithean. FTDNA gives my ethnic background as

        European 99%
        British Isles
        0%
        East Europe
        5%
        Finland
        < 1%
        Scandinavia
        32%
        Southeast Europe
        0%
        Iberia
        0%
        West and Central Europe
        62%

        A large portion of my ancestors on paper come from England, Scotland, and Ireland and I do have a 9th great grandfather who was known to be Finnish. Ancestry gives my ethic background as European: This is the newest estimate. The old estimate had a bit of Finnish/Northwest Russia showing at 7% and Scandinavia as 11%. So my Finnish/Northwest Russia was absorbed in the Sweden and Norway percentages. Ethnic background estimates can be very confusing. My paper trail is more in line with Ancestry's results than with FTDNA.

        England, Wales & Northwestern Europe55%

        Ireland & Scotland24%

        Norway10%

        Sweden6%

        Germanic Europe5%

        Comment

        Working...
        X