Premium
Inbreeding in Finland
Author(s) -
Jorde L.B.,
Pitkänen K.J.
Publication year - 1991
Publication title -
american journal of physical anthropology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.146
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1096-8644
pISSN - 0002-9483
DOI - 10.1002/ajpa.1330840203
Subject(s) - consanguinity , demography , inbreeding , kinship , residence , geography , population , ethnic group , cousin , socioeconomic status , logistic regression , sociology , statistics , mathematics , archaeology , anthropology
Abstract We have compiled data on the frequency of first‐cousin marriages in Finland using royal dispensation records for the time period 1810–1872 and national population statistics for the time period 1878–1920. For the earlier period, 0.315% of Finland's marriages were contracted between first cousins (2,331 of 739,387). During the second time period, 0.174% of Finland's marriages took place between first cousins (1,325 of 761,976). These figures, which yield average kinship coefficients of 0.00020 and 0.00011, respectively, show that the level of inbreeding in Finland due to first‐cousin marriage has been quite low. An analysis of individual parishes shows that first‐cousin marriages are, on average, substantially less frequent than predicted by a random‐mating model. In order to evaluate determinants of first‐cousin marriage, several predictive variables have been examined: parish ethnic composition (proportion of Swedish and Finnish speakers), husband's occupation (graded into 6 socioeconomic levels), geographic distance between spouses' premarital residences, population density, parish endogamy, and urban vs. rural residence. Various logistic and linear regression models were analyzed in which consanguinity was the dependent variable. The best predictors of consanguinity were ethnic composition and occupation. The other variables were not in general significant predictors. These results show that many of the “mate availability” factors that would be predicted theoretically to account for consanguinity variation (population density, geographic isolation, urban vs. rural residence) do not. Instead, the best predictors of consanguinity at the first‐cousin level are cultural factors such as ethnicity and occupation. Evaluation of cultural variables can provide a greatly enriched interpretation of complex biosocial phenomena such as inbreeding.