Was the interior of southern norway unpopulated during the proto germanic period or were there sami living there or something?
sami were always in the north
aryan/PIE came from the east and mixed with the old stock to make germanics
the entire Norwegian coast was populated around 9 000 BC, faggot
what you see there is just the cultural sphere of the Nordic Bronze Age
the idea that the Samis filled the entire area before being "pushed north" is not supported by evidence
this is not North America and Indians
most likely the Sami migrated from Russia at a later stage
they share genetic and cultural history with similar semi-nomadic tribe people in Asia
middle scandinavia was actually populated rather by baltic finns than sami, although even their population was rather small. sami came hundreds of years later.
>>1233006
the initial people that populated Scandinavia were mesolithic peoples from the south, related to the Ahrensburg culture
they were probably Haplogroup I1, which is the pre-Aryan European genetic marker
The finno-baltic peoples came much later
>>1233034
that was hundreds if not thousands of years earlier. we're talking about proto-germanic period which is roughly the same than time the (west-)roman empire was around
>>1233034
>"aryan"
credibility instantly lost
>>1230766
Why would anyone want to live in the interior of southern Norway? Without the gulf stream heating up the fjords, Norway would be inhospitable.
The interior wasn't unpopulated, but considering it's not much but barren steep mountains with the occasional workable valleys where you could herd animals in farms and it's isolated environments they always had relatively small communities. There were Norse herders living in settlements in the valleys between the mountains.
At the same time, on a higher altitude and along the mountains Sames moved around in tact with their reindeer flocks. Their reindeer live off of the moss that grows on the mountains. Some few were there but they fucked off eventually.
>>1233164
The gulf stream affects not just the coast. Besides people didn't have the luxury to choose where they would live.
>>1233116
aryan = indo-european, you autist
>>1233594
Ahahaha no
Aryan = Indo-Iranian
>>1233603
>>1233597
While the term he used isn't of the utmost accuracy it's easily understood what's identified in the context and is pointless and unwarranted to say that it effects the credibility of the post; in the same way that what >>1233207 referenced are actually lichens rather than mosses, it's still not a post of zero credibility.
>>1233634
Aryan has a specific use in linguistics, always in relation to Indo-Iranian/Aryan. It is no longer used to refer to IE or PIE, and hasn't for a while.
>>1230766
It was populated by people who would migrate South and go on to become the Goths.
Modern Scandinavians are literally descended from a back migration into the Germanic heimland.
>>1230766
I doubt the Sami would be content with being isolated without access to the ocean. The uncolored area is just probably uninhabitable or sparsely populated.
>>1235289
I'm aware.
It's strange
>>1235439
So modern Scandinavians and Germans share a common ancestor?
When did this migration happen, and when did they become 2 distinct cultures/people?
>>1236172
Of course they do, just read the wikipedia articles for "proto germanic" and "germanic languages" and you'll get the basics of all of that
T. Op
scandanavia is like a big fat rectum taking a fat dump on germony and denmark is the shit
>>1236458
>The good part of Scandinavia is the shit
Please
>>1236458
Funny how well can be detected the krautchan int influences and 4chan influences on this board
>>1236172
>So modern Scandinavians and Germans share a common ancestor?
Have you never studied history/linguistics in your life?
>>1233634
>lichens not moss
It's the same word in Norwegian so I thought likewise for English.
>>1235476
Take the map with a mountain of salt. It's not like the red color is a border fence where every intruder would be killed. It's just some illustration suggesting where people might have utlized iron. Sami had access to the sea but they had barely any use for it at all.
>>1235476
>I doubt the Sami would be content with being isolated without access to the ocean
what?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ancient_Germanic_peoples
It has sources so it's a credible article. There basically lived germanic tribes all over southern Norway and into the arctic. Basically this map, though it lacks some people like the 'Heider' north of Raumarici.
>>1237642
In school Norwegian they are two different words, "lav" (lichen) and "mose" (moss). But true, in many, perhaps most, dialects, they are the same word, "mose", for example in the word "reinmose" (reindeer moss / lichen). So it's correct to say that everything is considered "mose", but if you study biology you will make the distinction.
>>1237662
The sami had a lot of use of the sea. It allows for easy travel, hunting seals, probably a lot of fishing.
>>1237642
Yeah the particular lichen in question happens to be a misnomer in english too, still the contribution is appreciated
>>1237767
They traded big in the Hansa too, although that's much later.
>>1233597
The term is attested in many branches of IE, so it's technically accurate.
>>1230766
The entirety of Scandinavia used to be Finnish
>>1236172
>So modern Scandinavians and Germans share a common ancestor?
Not really, this is german propaganda. Norwegians and Swedes are more related to lithuanians, some poles and novgorodians/muscovites than germans.
>>1242107
>Not really
It's true though.
>>1242109
Not really, genetically speaking.
Germans are closer to french, english, spanish, irish etc.
>>1242109
it's not. "germans" are germanized celts and italics and nothing more. linguistics=/=genetics.
>>1242137
well, if you look it like that then elks and humans share a common ancestor too
>>1242262
big if true
>>1242262
All life shares a common ancestor.
>>1233006
Bullshit
The Swedes are the closest descendants to the original human settlers of Scandinavia (well all of Europe), namely the proto-europeans. Finns, samis and other faggots arrived much later.
>>1240352
No Scandinavia was settled by a now extinct group called proto europeans. Swedes are the group that is closest related to this group. 60-70 % of Swedes genome can be traced back to proto europeans. Finns, Sami and Germanics are much later arrivals.
>>1242130
Celts were in iberia, gaul and the british isles only. Maybe some stray tribes further east but halstatt/latene/urnfeild were not celtic. They were proto-germanic and pre-illyrian. But your right that germans have italic ancestry, pre-illyrian too but they also have scandinavian stock. Protogermanic language originated in central europe fr
om italic and pre-illyrian and spread north with a migration of people, fusing with finnic
>>1242392
you just pulled that shit out of your ass straight while you were writing it
>>1242107
>Be swede
>Have the purest european genes
>Get called an arab on an Yakutian pornographic board
>>1243151
t. Abdullah al-Stockholmi
>>1242819
>I1
>Germanic
>>1243211
Yes
>>1243151
>purest genes
Fucking stupid concept
T. Volkish germanocentist
>>1244117
butthurt and self-denialistic crossbreed spotted
>>1242331
The genetic makeup of Finns is made up of different waves of settlers that arrived to Finland, first of which arrived almost immediately after the ice retracted.
>>1244143
Pan-germanic, but other than that nope good try
This thread is full of people going "No, you're wrong. This is what really happened" and yet nobody is citing any source whatsoever.
>>1236172
>germans and scandi are supee closely related why the fuck do you think the Hordes of Germanic descended people around the world gravitate the norse paganism? Because its basically the same shit as the Germans believed but more fleshed out as far as what information has survived
