Tuesday, August 18, 2020

Popular Vahaduo Oracle for Finns

I made a small oracle experience using ancient dna.  It is a simple exercize giving possibility to get personal admixture results using the Vahaduo online service.  You need to have your own Eurogenes K13 results from Gedmatch and place it and following source data to the Vahaduo service.  Just replace original source data by  following lines:


Then place your K13 result as a target and calculate distant, single or multiple results dependnig on your own sample number.  Here is a multiple sample result:


Or you can use same data with your own oracle calculator instead of Vahaduo.

edit 20.8.2020 20:15


Sigtuna samples (Viking Age Swedish) without Volga Forest Steppe give better distances than Scandinavian Iron Age.  






Friday, August 14, 2020

I-L258 brought Proto-Germanic language to Finland?

It is a well-known idea that Baltic-Finnic languages, including Finnish and Estonian, and Saami adopted hundreds Proto-Germanic loan words, but it is poorly known where it happened and even more poorly how it happened, because Germanic speakers lived in Scandinavia, Central and West Europe and Baltic Finnic and Saami speakers lived in the other side of the Baltic Sea.  This is all proven by historical sources and research of prehistory.   Even though many geneticists willingly search support from linguistic theories and studies for their own conclusion they have not solved this question.   It is also a no-brainer that conclusions made between genes and languages can't hold causation, thus proving genetic divergence doesn't call for linguistic parity and it is question about correlation and how exclusive it is.

So let's look where the loan word adaptation would have happened based on linguistic theories.  The most common idea for the Germanic urheimat is in the area area from North Germany to Southern Scandinavia.


I think that this is the best estimation, although I have seen someones placing it to different places from present-day Russia to South Germany.   Reasons for these different opinions come probably from different datings of loan word and stratums in parallel languages and how methods in comparative linguistics treat these loan words.  In other words we have time, place and evolution of languages and all this depends on how the evolution goes on in time and place.  So, in some area the language was more diverged from the the  "proto-language", in some other places the language was still more in "pre-proto-language" stage.  This is normal linguistic evolution which happened and happens all the time and everywhere.  I can't imagine that some language was complete in some place at some particular time 

Let's then look the time.  The same Wikipedia article says that Proto-Germanic was spoken after 500BC and from 200AD, according to linguistics, its spoken successor is named Proto-Norse in the area we are now interested in.  In other areas the successors were something else. 

Then let's look to Baltic-Finnic languages.  The Wikipedia says that the diversification began in Southern Estonia 150AD, based on loan word evidences.  Some estimates give earlier dates, from 1000 - 600 BC.  Most of Baltic-Finnic branches are rather young, only 1000 years old.  But it is now enough to know that Baltic-Finnic languages were spoken in certain area from 500BC to 150AD, simultaneously with the Proto-Germanic language and the Wikipedia quote is:

" There is now wide agreement that Proto-Finnic was probably spoken at the coasts of the Gulf of Finland."

On the map we see a detached Karelian group, but it was born late in a historical era.


The local history and birth of Saami language in Baltic area as explained Wikipedia:

"Proto-Samic language is believed to have formed in the vicinity of the Gulf of Finland between 1000 BC to 700 AD, deriving from a common Proto-Sami-Finnic language (M. Korhonen 1981)."




It is important to know that also the Saami was spoken in a nearby area of the Proto-Germanic language and simultaneously with it. 

Let's then do the same thing geneticists use to do.  We can ask which widely known and proven genetic results would get the best chance for the Proto-Germanic loan word stratum found  in Baltic-Finnic and Saami languages and in donating and receiving languages fitting with the place and dating.  I made the following chart showing datings and places of the Scandinavian I1 haplogroup L22.  All allele mutation data is gathered from FamilytreeDna and presents obviously BIG-Y results.  All datings are from Yfull.

edit.  correction made regarding statistics.  For instance the number in column I-Z74 includes, inter alia, tested L813 samples, but not the parallel downstream clade I-CTS2208.  

edit.  some numbers corrected. 

edit. added Italian L22.

Monday, August 3, 2020

New effort with MyTrueAncestry.com

As a follow-up to the previous test I expanded tests including samples from a larger area.   These results look decent, although some individual results can be uncertain, which can be a result of bad aDna quality.   First my results and another Finnish result.  We both show similar Viking era history, but the difference exists in more ancient times.  The reason is probably that I am Western Finnish and she/he is Southwestern Finnish.   All samples are from academic sources (except mine) and randomly selected, so I can't assure that they represent any average for their ethnicity. 

The time of first results is limited to 1000 BC, but there is no particular reason to do it,  I just did it before I found out that at least in the south the decent history is much longer.  

My result:

Southwestern Finnish result:

Obviously she/he has more Eastern ancient origin than me, although the later history is very similar pointing to an Iron Age Scandinavian influence.  This conclusion is not far fetched, because my yDna reflects over 2000 years old Scandinavian origin and Southwest Finland got its Uralic population around 300-500 AD. 

For comparison a Swedish result.  It is obvious that her/his older history differs from what we see in Finnish results and is Central European (Saxon etc), until the Scandinavian ancestry stabilized in the Iron Age.

To see how the Fennoscandinavian ancestry differs from more eastern Uralic and Iron Age Steppe ancestry, I picked also a Mari and Tatar samples.



And a Turkish sample, which shows decent ancient Anatolian ancestry:

Italian result from Tuscany:

I would say that there is quite a lot logic in these results, much more provable than not provable.  Even though there are ancestry points hard to explain, we can't say that even that ancestry is not always wrong.   Definitely there is a much potential to use aDna samples with reasonable algorithms to find out hidden ancestry and learn more about our history, plus dispel misconception.