Germanic Origins

Seriously?

Fucking Idiot, way to damage the thread just for a joke.

>damage the thread
Kek

Get a load of this guy

Did someone say Germanic?

The entire Scandinavian peninsula and its surroundings were supposedly at one time all Finnic/Sami, so assuming the idea that native people's aren't usually replaced just integrated applies it would make sense if a migratory germanic tribe came around and slowly started dominating them to the point where they were absorbed genetically and the """indigenous""" uralics were absorbed culturally or something

The so-called Nordic types, with long skulls, pale skin, blue eyes and blond hair, are "aboriginal" in the sense that the land they inhabit was unoccupied when they arrived during the mesolithic. Germanic the language is of course Indo-European, and they didn't come along until much later (the bronze age). The process by which the Nordics adopted the Germanic language are unknown, but Germanic has been the language of more than one racial group since it's earliest presence in Europe.

So essentially:

>Proto-Indo-European descended people go into Europe
>These wandering people do a bit of mixing with the people whose areas they wander through (how much?)
>Then they settle in Southern-Scandinavia/ Northern Germany
>After a period here they then split, and some people went South, some people went West, some people stayed behind etc.

But if that's the case, what happened to the original people in Southern-Scandinavia / Northern Germany?
Did they just purge them, or outbreed them?
And say Northern Swedes and Norwegians, are they too descended from these people, or from the people there before them, or from a mix?

As peoples migrate and mingle, the genetic lineages of all of them live on in the offspring. But there is usually only one language that prevails, sometimes taking linguistic substrate elements from the other language. There is a theory that Germanic languages are so different from the other IE languages because they mixed with Uralic peoples who originally inhabited the area. Evolution favors light skinned people in colder areas and dark skinned people in hot areas. The Indo-Aryans mixed with other peoples in South Asia, who were probably rather dark in their complexion. Maybe it was Dravidians, maybe Semitics, maybe something else.

TL;DR: Swedes are 50% PIEs and 50% light skinned Ancient Europeans (or Finns); and Indians are 50% PIEs and 50% dark skinned peoples.

No, the proto Germanics settled in modern Germany-Poland, south of the "Nordic" occupied Scandinavia. Their language and culture spread to the "Nordics", for reasons unknown. Likely whatever original language the "Nordics" spoke was related to Finnish. pr else is now extinct.

Essentially this, yes.
>But if that's the case, what happened to the original people in Southern-Scandinavia / Northern Germany?
>Did they just purge them, or outbreed them?
They were Germanics at that point. There was no difference between the two peoples anymore, as they had mixed completely.

...

Seeing as People arrived in Scandinavia as early as 10k BC, and that this was both long before the Uralics (see pic related) and even the Proto-Indo-European they must have spoken some entirely different language.

Another question I have is: Are todays Scandinavians (not samis or finns) germanics, or the descendants of the originals, or a mix?

[spoiler]Jesus, so much confusion ITT, and out. Why can't someone just do a genetic analysis and settle this question once and for all[/spoiler]

>y chromosome

big white germanig benis in tite yellow sami pucci

so what language was it
where did they arrive from

Don't ask me I'm confused as fuck about all of this as everything is contradictory. However it seems the original inhabitants of Scandinavia spoke neither Uralic nor Germanic. As Uralic didn't come to Scandinavia before around 1000 BC (from the North), while the 10k BC guys lived long before even The PIE's existed at all.

Perhaps something from an extinct language family. Another question of course is, what happened to these guys:
Did they just mix with the Germanics when they came in the South, and the Uralics in the North, or did they go extinct, or did they simply adopt the respective cultures and languages of Uralics and Germanics with little Genetic admixture.

I have an understanding that the earliest Scandis came from the South as the Ice retracted.

Best Europe is Germanic Europe.

No surprise.

Scandis are mongrels of indo-euro invaders (they show up as people with axes in carvings) and the original people of scandi who are basically sami. This mongrelization is the germanic people today, they re-invaded the south later on and mixed with mainland celts which are also more related to the original indo-euro invaders.

Europe had a fuck ton of mixing and its laugable to me when yruopoors call themselves "pure" and me an american a mongrel because I am irish and german.

>The first split occured around 2000 years ago into North, East and West Germanics. Not long after that, West Germanic split into Ingvaeonic, Irmionic and Istvaeonic languages or dialects. At least the continental Germans had Slavic, Celtic, and possibly Italic, Turkic or Fenno-Ugric genetic admixture.
Then the Great Migration happened and everything got thrown around Europe and North Africa. The East Germanics, namely the Ostro- and Visigoths, the Burgundians, and Vandals, fought with Rome and against Rome, and founded multiple kingdoms. Some West Germanics, namely the Suebians, joined the fun as well, but most of the remained in what is now northern and central Germany.
The Ingvaeones (North Sea Germanics) split into Saxons, Angles and Frisians. Anglos and Saxons invaded Britain. Some Saxons remained in Germany and fathered the Low German languages such as Eastphalian, Plautdietsch and Lower Saxon.
The Istvaeones or Low Franconians fathered the Dutch language, among others.
The Irmiones, or High Germans, fathered the High German languages, such as Standard German, Swiss German, Yiddish and Pennsylvania Dutch.

you know what you are, you are a MONGREL, MONGREL

nyahahah
t. europure

Maybe they were related to whoever the fuck Basque descend from

>Proto-Indo-European they must have spoken some entirely different language.
Yes. Those languages are completely lost to history and grouped under Ancient European languages. Most likely, the whole situation was akin to pre-columbian America, where you had tons of small language families and isolates spread over tiny or gigantic spreads of land.
Other non-IE languages in Europe that we know of include Basque, Cretan, Etruscan and Iberian.

>Cretan
most people i meet speak cretin

>tfw we will never know what ancient europe was like
true suffering for a historian

>the original people of scandi who are basically sami
Seems untrue, see pic. Timeframe doesn't match, also the original Scandnavians came from the South, Uralics came from the North-East and mixed with, or atleast culturally and linguistically influenced the people in Northern Norway who were already there. These people became the samis.
So it seems that Samis are essentially people who descend from a mix of Uralics and Scandis and who have an Uralic Culture.

This still leaves the question of who the (non-Sami) Scandinavians of today descend from completely open.

This article will be a goldmine to you.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Europe_(archaeology)

What an absolute retard

so the original europeans could be the descendants of cro magnon that replaced the neanderthals?

Oh god. This is what happens when people who can't be bothered to actually read about obscure peoples and cultures start mumbling. Your pic is largely bullshit and most likely ethno-nationalist pandering.

The geographical area of Finland saw its first settlement just as the ice retracted. And secondly there was no unified "uralic group", the areas that finnics lived in saw several different migrations of people that form the modern finnics. The Finnish and Sami languages separated because the Finnish population living in Western Finland saw a influx (100 - 1000 people) of indoeuropeans, this influx happened between 3000 BC abd 2000 BC. This means that the Finnish and Sami populations were separated already at that point, because the Sami population did not receive an influx.

The origins of the Finnic peoples is a mystery, but at this moment there is a directly proven ancestry between modern Finns and the stone age occupants of Finland.

Pic related is the oldest net in the world from the year 8300BC found in Finland.

cf. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths#/media/File:Roman_Empire_125.png

Dated to 125 A.D. You can see the splitting of the peoples...

and here is the pic

>Austrians are considered Germanic, but genetically they're almost identical to Hungarians.

Looking at this table, Austria's R1a:R1b ratio is opposite to that of Hungary. Which makes sense because Austria has seen a lot more genetic contribution from South Germany than Hungary.

eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml

I think the first of you is memeing.
Austrians are much less hairy and brown than Hungarians.

>but at this moment there is a directly proven ancestry between modern Finns and the stone age occupants of Finland.

how did they do it
did they use stone age occupant DNA from bones or something and compared?

>Oh god. This is what happens when people who can't be bothered to actually read about obscure peoples and cultures start mumbling. Your pic is largely bullshit and most likely ethno-nationalist pandering.

Hey, I'm just trying to understand this stuff, and everyone ITT, and outside of it gives completely contradictory answers. Also Pic related in the comment you replied to was from wikipedia, which contrary to all memes is a pretty good scource of information if you don't have any alternatives.
Also Finland isn't in Scandinavia culturally or ethnically.
You're focusing on Finland, but this is just laying on even more confusion because I was talking about Scandinavians and Samis.
Specifically I was talking about Norway.

Also, I probably know more about Samis than you seeing as I am from Northern Norway, and I may even have some Sami ancestry.

In any case there were people in Norway who came along the coast from the South, as long ago as 10k BC.
So Samis/Finns weren't the original inhabitants of Norway atleast, because it would seem Finland and Norway was settled at approximately the same time by people coming from opposite sides. Even if the Samis are, as you say descended from Finns.

Also you write like a hysterical tumblrina.

Germanic migration during "the Great Migration" is sort of my jam... First of all we cannot actually tie peoples to names. Naming conventions like "Saxons" "Goths" and "Angles" are inherently flawed because those who did the naming, Romans et al, while they could tell the difference between barbarian tribes, as Tacitus and Ammianus Marcellinus show, they are still lumping together whole groups. We know that the Visigoths are at the very least comprised of 3 different Gothic groups (Tervingi, Greuthungi, and those of Radagaisus) and including Alans, Vandals, and maybe even Suevi and who know who else (I wouldn't be surprised if there were Huns too). One here can then be like "ok but most of them are Germanic groups" and I'd be like "K, and who designated them as Germanic? Because they walked through Germania at some point? There are Ostrogothic grave sites in China." I digress.

So the question "Do the Germanic peoples share a genetic origin as well as a linguistic?" must logically be answered at worst "no", or at best, "impossible to say". The time period I just referenced, 4-6th century AD, covers just the Regions of modern day Romania, Hungary, Ukraine, the Balkans, Austria,Thrace, etc. Genetically, the 'Germanic Tribes' mingled long and well with, to name a few, Huns, Magyars, Avars, and Turks as well as Slavs, Burgundians, and Romans (this one is a cop-out because identifying what a Roman is is an even greater nightmare). Prior to their arrival in Europe, all archaeological evidence points to the Germanic peoples arriving from the east, north of the Black Sea which means they would have mingled with any number of peoples along the way and each of these 'Germanic tribes' arrived at different times. Thus the second point "Or did the Germanic language and culture spread to become the dominant culture among different peoples in different places?" is closer to the truth. The only issue is how you define where Germanic culture and language begins.

why can't you just extract dna from bones from graves and compare to modern day humans and see who's who instead of this sources and archeology stuff

afaik, we know about neanderthal dna from bones and their bones have been dead for longer

We can totally do this.problem is finding the graves sites of the exact people you want to find... that's a problem...

Archeological evidence. Most stuff about pre-history is trying to put pieces together.
>wikipedia, which contrary to all memes is a pretty good scource of information if you don't have any alternatives.

NO it isn't. Wikipedia is only good for basic stuff, and history about the anglo world. Wikipedia actively discourages using academic sourcers and all sources have to be in English. Hence why Wikipedia is so lackluster when it comes to more obscure cultures.
>you're focusing on Finland,
The Finnic peoples* The Sami live outside of Finland.
>Samis
Samis are Finnic.
>So Samis/Finns weren't the original inhabitants of Norway atleast
Depends on which area, and we can't know that for sure, but everything claimed about the Sami's in that wikipedia section is wrong.

>The hotspot near Palermo

neat

Normans maybe, most likely

same as the bulgaria and greece thing possibly

and notice it's Y-DNA

tons of rape, fun times

fucking normies

Fair hair was another physical trait associated with the Indo-Europeans. In contrast, the genes for blue eyes were already present among Mesolithic Europeans belonging to Y-haplogroup I. The genes for blond hair are more strongly correlated with the distribution of haplogroup R1a, but those for red hair have not been found in Europe before the Bronze Age, and appear to have been spread primarily by the R1b people .

In short,Blonde hair and blue eyes have originated from the Black Sea,some 8000-6000 years ago.

Also,you're historically illiterate and you're probably colonial as well.

Still doesn't stop you from using Slavic inventions like AC electricity,digital electronic computing,wireless transmission,radios,long-range telephones to post that message.

>tons of rape, fun times
Have people like you ever heard of the concept of intermarriage?
The average rapebabby is gonna be drowned in the river like the foreign dog he is you know.
Unless the father properly took the mother as his bride or concubine, there's no reason whatsoever for the kid to be kept around.

I'm not entirely certain where the majority of Germanics came from but I think there's a lot of evidence that their leaders and noble class have a partially Israelite origin, mainly from the tribe of Dan, or perhaps more accurately the nomadic Danite/Denyon/Danann sea peoples supergroup who had an Israelite branch

It's really telling that the main Danite symbols are a snake and an eagle

> but at this moment there is a directly proven ancestry between modern Finns and the stone age occupants of Finland.

No there isn't Proto-Uralic is now dated only to around 2000BC whatever were the inhabitants of Finland in stone age were they were definetly not Uralics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleo-European_languages

>After the rejection of the continuity theories, the recent linguistic arguments have placed the Proto-Uralic homeland around the Kama River, or more generally close to the Great Volga Bend and the Ural Mountains. The expansion of Proto-Uralic has been dated to about 2000 BC (4000 years ago), whereas its earlier stages go back at least one or two millennia further. Either way, this is considerably later than the earlier views of the continuity theories, which would place Proto-Uralic deep into Europe.[22][3]

>So far no challenging views have been presented.

This is a meme, the Sami people are only indigenous to the north of Scandinavia, the germanics (The Nords) were the first ones to settle southern scandinavia. The Germanics came from the south, the Sami/Finnic from the east through what is now Russia.

Proto-Germanic language formed rather late only 500BC.

So in short what I was trying to say when those people reached southern Scandinavia weren't yet Nords or Germanics just speakers of Proto-Indo-European dialect continuum which later due to some sound changes evolved into Proto-Germanic.

>Scandis are mongrels of indo-euro invaders (they show up as people with axes in carvings) and the original people of scandi who are basically sami.
This is all wrong, the germanics reached Scandinavia first, making them the "original" people.

All the Scandinavian people (Swedish, Danish and Norwegian) are considered germanic, see Scandinavia has been relatively isolated through history, and not a lot of inter breeding with other people (except other scandinavians, and in Swedens case,to a certain degree, also the finnish people) have occurred

That is true, what I meant was that the people who were to become the Germanics were the first to settle Scandinavia, it's true that the language developed later, but they did not change "biologically" during this time, they were ethnically comparable to the other people who would later also be part of the Germanic group

Tesla invented AC in the US, which is a Germanic invention

>the germanics reached Scandinavia first,

That's very wrong on many levels.

First identifiable archeological culture which reached Scandinavia was Kongemose culture which is dated to 6000-52000BC and they were simple hunter gatherers, they were definitely not Germanics.

Later Funnelbeaker culture 4300BC-2800BC which was a merger of hunter gatherer cultures and upcoming farmers.

Only then Corded Ware 2900BC-2350BC culture which is undoubtedly Indo-European culture and contributed majority of genepool into modern day populations, and that's still few millenia back before Proto-Germanics formed as there was influence from other cultures like Unetice culture 2300BC-1600BC which wasn't Germanic either. So saying Germanics reached Scandinavia first is shitty revisionism.

Retarded map

Why are Scotland and NI excluded?

Scotland is considered celtic despite it's Anglian genes and English language.

Wasn't France largely conquered by, well... the Franks?

Do they look like they speak a Germanic language to you?

Looked it up, you're right!
Thank you for clearing that up for me!

Does Ireland speak a non-Germanic language?

Some do. What I'm saying those Franks in France romanized themselves and adopted Gallo-Roman culture willingly already in 6th century and didn't leave any traces of Germanic language today.

Irish situation is different they didn't drop their language just because they thought English is cool. But due to opression, famines, wars and domination by English.

Touche.

There is no germans in alsace

By who?

Only the North Western part of Scotland ever spoke English.

Why are we posting maps based on meme history?

>Ever spoke English
GAELIC

FUCKING GAELIC

Despite what modern french people speak, The original Franks, those who traveled from beyond the Rhine, spoke a Germanic dialect that was nothing like modern, old, or really any kind of 'French'. As said, in they then Romanized and became what they are today... cue hundreds of years.

Early neolithic were already mixed with Paleo Europeans

what do you gain from spreading misinformation?

Of course your filename is misleading. It should be titled "Haplogroup I1 + I2b".

Who I1 and I2b are related to? Haplogroups I2a (Dinarics) and J (Arabs).

Which answers the OP question:

>so much confusion ITT

There is no confusion whatsoever:

>15,000 years ago I haplogroup (pre-IE) settled Europe upward from Asia Minor.
>5,000 years ago haplogroup R1a (IE) settled Europe from Russia westwards.

> In contrast, the genes for BLUE eyes were already present among Mesolithic Europeans belonging to Y-haplogroup I.
>In short,Blonde hair and BLUE eyes have originated from the Black Sea,some 8000-6000 years ago.

You realize you've just contradicted yourself right?

And this is the IE haplogroup.

>R1a
>IE
Literally all of the Yamnaya samples are R1b

Nah, he's right. Mesolithic in Europe is 10k - 5k years ago.

Mesolithic Europeans didn't come from the black sea.

>The first split occured around 2000 years ago into North, East and West Germanics. Not long after that, West Germanic split into Ingvaeonic, Irmionic and Istvaeonic languages or dialects

First West-Germanic split from North-Germanic around 700BC, East-Germanic split from North-Germanic around 1AD. That is why Gothic resembles the nordic languages more. And why West- and North-Germanic languages drifted too far apart to be mutually understandable.

Germanic peoples are mostly associated with haplogroups I1* and I2b

Yeah, they probably had some R1b too. But R1a was the main IE haplogroup.

And R1b in western Europe settled long before IE migration.

>First West-Germanic split from North-Germanic around 700BC
That's way to early, Grimm's law hadn't even happened by then

Common Germanic was spoken until around the first century AD, and East Germanic was the first to split off, Northwest Germanic remained in unity for some time after that

How Germanic were the Normans? Not culturally of course since they were fairly Latinized by the 11th century.

They entered the Bosphorus in that region.

Some of the earliest human settlements in Europe can be found in the region of Romania, iirc.

>(non-Sami) Scandinavians

now you delving into the upper up of the paleolith

the upperpaleolithic inhabitants of europe were robust as fuck (cro-magz)

blond/blueyedism wasnt a thing in the upperpaleo

so they did not resemble the nordics

if they even spoke, they spoke something akin to Australasian

first Homo Sapiens skulls found in Europe looked like a cross between Khoisan and proto-Mongoloid skulls.

Hell, that Manot 1 skull found looks like nothing we have today.

Our model suggests that during this period of climatic upheaval, the descendants of the hunter-gatherers who survived through the Last Glacial Maximum were largely replaced by a population from another source

The new data show that the mitochondrial DNA of three individuals who lived in present-day Belgium and France before the coldest period in the last Ice Age -- the Last Glacial Maximum -- belonged to haplogroup M. This is remarkable because the M haplogroup is effectively absent in modern Europeans but is extremely common in modern Asian, Australasian, and Native American populations.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160204150602.htm

“Prior to the Druids Western Europe was undoubtedly inhabited by a squat Mongoloid race”
- H.P. Lovecraft

it is well documented in history that the Germanic peoples were akin to the Scandinavian peoples, who came from Scythia. At the end of the first century A.D., Tacitus wrote about people in Scandinavia. He called one of their tribes the Suiones. The Suiones mentioned by Tacitus were also known as the Svear. The word Svear or Sviar is constantly used in the Nordic Sagas to denote the inhabitants of Sweden. Swedish stamps give the name of the country as "Sverige." It comes from Svea rike - meaning "the kingdom of the Svear." The empire of the Svear was in the territory around Lake Malar near where Stockholm is today. This empire "was called the Lesser Svithiod, or Sweden, in contrast to the Larger Svithiod, or Scythia, from whence they had emigrated" (Vol.1, page 79, Scandinavia by Andrew Crichton and Henry Wheaton).

Tesla was born in the Austrian Empire. He was Austrian and therefore Germanic.

No,because he was an ethnic Serb.