Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Origins Version 3: Why not two founder populations in Finland

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

  • Origins Version 3: Why not two founder populations in Finland

    There are two founder populations in Finland that cut diagonally over the country from north-west to south-east. This can easily be seen from the male Y-DNA, as 58% are of N1c and 28% of the I1. Both populations immigrated to the area mainly about 2000-1000 years ago, which means subclades have emerged within Finland. (Not completely accurate, as about 25% of the I1 came from Sweden or Scandinavia within the last 700 years, but also because this is neglecting the original Sami population).

    The main point is that when we examine the Origin 3 map, the origins are clumped both together into one Finland. In the explanation of the origins is stated "The first Finno-Ugric speakers from modern-day central Russia moved into northern Eastern Europe around the 6th century BCE. Both Saami and Finnish languages belong to the Finno-Ugric language family. Saami was widely spoken north of the Baltic Sea before 1000 CE, prior to the arrival of early Finnish speakers from Estonia." Then there is a nebulous section about Finland being part of Sweden without any sections of migrations from the west during this time and before that time.

    The above is then clearly misleading. It implies that the ancestors of people Finnish (and Finnish-Swedish minority) population today where only Finno-Ugric, while in reality 58% were Finno-Ugric and 28% North-Germanic. An accurate representation would explain Finland that the origins of the population in Finland has two origins, instead of just saying the At-DNA has X% from Finland. Thus, if the ancestors of the population were of the North-Germanic origins it should in my mind be separated from the Finno-Ugric, even if the migrations happened so long ago that the specific mutations of both originated in what is today Finland.

    Does this matter? Scientifically it does, because it's false. If you make a claim on the origins of the ancestry of a person, as FTDNA does, you should at least make a half-assed effort to make it accurate.

  • #2
    In modeling ethnic origins, it is certainly not a valid procedure to combine samples by politics rather than by their actual cluster affinity. What we would really like to know, however, is whether the "Finnish" reference samples for autosomal DNA actually fall into two clusters, as the post here suggests they should. Or, indeed, what the apparent geographic boundaries are for all of the clusters that the statistical analysis detected.

    Comment

    Working...
    X