Is scandinavia the urheimat of the germanic peoples? I've heard claims that it is...

Is scandinavia the urheimat of the germanic peoples? I've heard claims that it is, but my teacher said that the germanics invaded from the south and drove the sami out of southern scandinavia.

Other urls found in this thread:

jassa.org/?p=11438
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/samaz
pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/kάμα
youtube.com/watch?v=Ls2PvU8kKJg
youtube.com/watch?v=u6qqhrmFe3c
youtube.com/watch?v=112SmDq0tLo
youtube.com/watch?v=ZLj53a6vAec
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Southern Sweden and Denmark are, with some parts of Northern Germany.
Sami people haven't lived in Scandinavia very long.
North of the Proto-Germanics there lived other Indo-Europeans related to them who were assimilated.

Who gives a fuck? The only reason this is brought up is so some virgin can say that he is a german or superior because of muh germanics. Were all mutts

t. LaVar Fernando Jesus de la Luz extincto "negrito" Miller

britfag here, had a quite alot of scandis at my unis, the basically look german (blonde hair blue eyes, slighty flat faces) but with slight asian looking eyes in most of them, always looked like they were slightly high, also their weird bork bork singalong language not only amused me but i was often aroused by it.

t. la creatura

As a Dane they properly were high or drunk

t. ahmed

>Semnones
>Lugii
>Rugii
>Chatii
>Batavi

>Germanic

Rugii at least others were Celtic

Not a butthurt Poolack, but even I will admit that this map is overstating Germanic presence in Poland. The Goths, Rugii and probably the Burgundians arrived in Poland during the 1st century AD. Only the Vandals would have been there before 100 BC, as they arrived on the Oder during the 2nd century BC.

And to answer your question, the Germanic Urheimat is southern Scandinavia and northern Germany. They did expand from southern Scandinavia and drive out Finno-Ugrics living further north, but their urheimat definitely included southern Scandinavia. I'm guessing your teacher is trying to push the angle that Swedes are evil invaders who drove out the peaceful Sami, despite Indo-Europeans being more "native" to northern Europe than Finno-Ugrics.

>Semnones
>Lugii
>Rugii
>Chatii
>Batavi

>not Germanic

Half of Germanic tribes in Germania weren't even Germanic. It was a geographical term, not rassenpure environment, even German scholars admit it now.

Missinterpenting Ptolemy doesn't mean that OP's map is true. It's based on XIX century pseudo science.

Specify which Germanic tribes weren't Germanic.

Semnones, Lugii. on the Balto-Slavic side. Rugii are up for debate.

Chatti and Batavi were Celts.

It's hard to find information about this but apparently there was a local culture in Norway called Risvik who were pre-IE and not Uralic that lasted until 1st millenium BC.

None of them. First of all, Ptolemy's Vistula is Odra

>none of the Germanic tribes were Germanic
You're joking, right?

Germanus in latin - brother
Has nothing to do with nordic languages

Rugii are slavic Rugianie, they were never near Vistula, Ptolemy's Vistula is Odra

You state all of this like a fact while presenting no evidence other than your anecdotal made up shit.

The Semnones were Germanic. The Lugii are still up for debate, but if anything they were Celts, not Balto-Slavs. There's nothing definitive on the Rugii either, but the connection to Rogaland is stronger than any evidence of them being Balto-Slavic.

I'd like to know why you believe the Chatti and Batavi were Celts, since it's almost universally accepted that they were Germanic with substantial Celtic influence. If you want to pick out Germanic tribes that were probably Celtic, there are far better examples.

>The Semnones were Germanic.
>You state all of this like a fact while presenting no evidence other than your anecdotal made up shit.

Let me guess, this is another brilliant invention of that shitty Jassa website?

Not the same person, also meme arrows are not an argument.

>The Semnones were Germanic
Nope, there is no evidence for it. Their name has more in common with Slavic "Semia" meaning earth.

>“[… at one point in time [previously] a Germanic tribe of the Semnones had settled here. We do not know in which language the Semnones communicated with one another. Nevertheless, every Slav, every Sorb will recognize a Sorb [or Slav] root word in the tribal designation of the Semnones. Semia means the Earth. Thus, the Semnonen were the “landowners.”

jassa.org/?p=11438

No it is my own interpretation of Ptolemy book2/ chapter 10

>shitty Jassa website
It has more credibility than Germans claiming all tribes for themselves without any actual evidence.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/samaz

Just like Wisla comes from Weichsel instead of Wistla, right?

I'm seriously wonder if you're retarded or just pretending, your whole assumptions are based on false etymologies because words look similar.

Take rugii for example, Old Norse for rye is rugr, and in Old Prussian rugis. Does that make them Baltic now?

This is the evidence, unless your IQ is too low to undertsand it and check for example that Cama means żar

I'll do it for you because you are 10 yo
pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/kάμα

>iI don't understand it
>it must be a bullshit then

I'm seriously wonder if you're retarded or just pretending, your whole assumptions are based on false german pseudoscience based on Drang Nach Osten because EVERYONE, HAD to be German.
:^)

>""proto germanic"" made-up words with sign of asshole

Cite any archaeological evidence accepted by scholars showing any Slavic settlement near Baltic sea earlier than 5-6th century.

Cite any archaeological evidence accepted by scholars showing any Germanic settlement near Baltic sea earlier than 5-6th century.

>inb4 Biskupin

Tacitus stated that the Semnones were a branch of the Suebi. This wasn't a loose connection either, he quite clearly stated that they were an old and important Suebic group. We know for a fact that the Suebi were Germanic since the Irminonic languages derive from the Suebi. We also know that the Suebi who settled in Galicia were Germanic since they left a linguistic trace in the languages of that region.

Furthermore
>An inscription found on an altar in Augsburg, a Roman monument from 260 AD, states that the Semnones were also called Juthungi.
Juthungi is quite clearly derived from Proto-Germanic.

Also
>Their name has more in common with Slavic "Semia" meaning earth.
If anything it has more in common with Celtic. "Semnones" is very similar to the Celtic "Senones". The Semnones were described as having sacred groves that were entered while wearing chains. "Semn" in Proto-Celtic produces "sīmo-", meaning "chain", and sacred groves were a Celtic practice adopted by Germanics. Like many Germanic tribes, they were probably originally Celts who came under the rule of Germanics.

>Tacitus stated that the Semnones were a branch of the Suebi
They were called Suevi before Germans started wewuzzing as them. v not b.

Goths called themselves 𐍃𐌰𐌼𐌰𐌺𐌿𐌽𐍃 SAMAKUNI. Semnones/Semkuni same thing.

It is accepted by scholars that the Goths were Germanic. They arrived in Pomerania during the 1st Century AD.

Do you really want to try arguing that the Goths weren't Germanic? We had this discussion a few weeks ago and we know what the result of that was.

That doesn't prove anything that I wrote wrong.

Jastorf culture, Wielbark culture etc.

>accepted by archeologicucks

Archeocuck finds statue of thunder god in turkey. Ok it's hitite then
Archeocuck finds exactly the same in Lithuania. Oh noes it's an import.
That's how archeology works. It's a bunch of cucks. Never trust any archeocuck.

>Were all mutts
Speak for yourself, amerimongrel

Suebi???
Never existed.
It's Seuvi or Sueui.

So it's not an evidence, but some blogpost by some Polack with false etymology definitely proves everything, got it.

>Jastorf culture
>Baltic, near Poland
Brainlet.
>Wielbark culture
Oh you mean those guys that ate exactly like Slavs, looked like Slavs and had funerary rites like Slavs?
Then show me archeological evidence of their settlements. Because to me, they were nothing more than an Iron Age rowing band of barbarians that left nothing behind.

Semantics. Try actually disputing the content of what I wrote.

They originated in Scandinavia and Pomerania, the Sami always lived further north, they just pushed them further.

>Juthungi is quite clearly derived from Proto-Germanic.
How could anything derive from made-up language?

>Like many Germanic tribes, they were probably originally Celts who came under the rule of Germanics.
That's funny

Not accepted by Kadłubek though

Jastorf culture was on the Baltic Sea you stupid bastard. You never specified "near Poland".

>ate exactly like Slavs
Wow, people who lived in Poland had a similar diet to people also living in Poland a few centuries later? Who would have guessed?

>looked like Slavs
Wow, ancient ethnic groups were primarily determined by language, culture and ethnicity rather than haploshits, genetics and skull shape? Who would have guessed?

>Jastorf culture was on the Baltic Sea you stupid bastard. You never specified "near Poland".
Nice backpedal here.
>Wow, people who lived in Poland had a similar diet to people also living in Poland a few centuries later? Who would have guessed?
But the Vikings that settled in Poland didn't. Weren't Vikangz germanic?
>Wow, ancient ethnic groups were primarily determined by language, culture and ethnicity rather than haploshits, genetics and skull shape? Who would have guessed?
So no Iron and Blood for you.

>>Baltic, near Poland

Jastorf culture reached Baltic, I was't specifically talking about modern day Polish territories brainlet.

>Wielbark culture

Yeah I mean those guys that carried Y-DNA markers typical to Scandinavians like l1. And on PCA's clustered near them. But yes they were ancient Slavs.

o..ok
>"Semnones" is very similar to the Celtic "Senones".
>That would prove em Semnones were germanic.

>Jastorf culture reached Baltic, I was't specifically talking about modern day Polish territories brainlet.
Finntard please.
>Yeah I mean those guys that carried Y-DNA markers typical to Scandinavians like l1. And on PCA's clustered near them. But yes they were ancient Slavs.
A few samples truly change everything.

That's cool, but it doesn't change fact.

We have substantial evidence that the Goths were Germanic, and don't ask for it because I know it was you in the thread a few weeks ago that I was explaining this shit to.

Yes and your anecdotal evidence about meals skulls shapes change everything even more.

>Nice backpedal here.
How so? Read the original post. Only the Baltic was mentioned, not the Baltic coast specifically in Poland.

>So no Iron and Blood for you.
Can you stop accusing me of being a 19th Century German? I don't give a shit about German blood and soil nationalism, and I'm not even German.

Well if you ignore all the evidence I provided for them being Germanic, then yes you could conclude that the were Celts.

Alternatively, there's literally no evidence that they were Slavic aside from a very, very weak linguistic connection that no scholars would take seriously.

Facts known by chroniclers like Kadłubek or PIotr z Byczyny not fake Wulfila bible. I am different person, actually I never was on Veeky Forums before.

>fake Wulfila bible
How do you figure that?

Some Polack who lived centuries later after it was written said it's fake so it has to be.

Well preserved, made-up script

Lol

Oh boy, another one of these threads where a bunch of Poles come in and try to claim other people's history in order to justify their current presence.

Do you really not see how you're like the We Wuz Kangz meme?
'History' this ideologically motivated belongs on /pol/.

>wewuzing
Calm down, Germanus! (latin for brother)

>their current presence
This is Wendland. Slavic language was used up to XVIII century. Still quite autonomous region.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ls2PvU8kKJg
youtube.com/watch?v=u6qqhrmFe3c

Don't repeat bullshit that they came there in 4th century somewhere from Belarus.

>Don't repeat bullshit that they came there in 4th century somewhere from Belarus.

Yes, I'd much rather deny the Migration Period based on some kooky scientists going 180 degrees against the consensus so that Poles have a more solid founding myth.

This is Wolgadeutscheland. German language remains used in XX century. Still quite autonomous region.
youtube.com/watch?v=112SmDq0tLo
youtube.com/watch?v=ZLj53a6vAec

Don't repeat bullshit that they came there in 18th century somewhere from Germany.

Es tut mir leid, I forgot the image :)

>consensus
Who was consenting with whom behind our backs?

Drang nach Osten

No, they have been there forever. The Germanic urheimat is in Eastern Europe. Everyone else is wrong, only I know the truth. All accounts of German settlers coming in the 18th century are forgeries.

What the fuck are you talking about brainlet, the Batavi are taught to us as THE most important Germanic tribe in our history.

T. Dutchman

Lugii were either Baltic or Celtic and Batavians weren't Germanic :

Tacitus Histories
>At their various command posts, Tutor, Classicus and Civilis were spurring their men to battle, urging the Gauls to fight for freedom, the Batavians for glory and the Germans to gain plunder.

Alternatively

>The tribal name, probably a derivation from batawjō ("good island", from Germanic bat- "good, excellent," which is also in the English "better," and awjō "island, land near water"), refers to the region's fertility
>Tacitus wrote that they had originally been a tribe of the Chatti
>The first ancient writer to mention the Chatti is Strabo, some time after 16 AD, who includes the Chatti in a listing of conquered Germanic tribes
>Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History (written 77–79 AD) grouped the Chatti and Suebi together with the Hermunduri and the Cherusci, calling this group the Hermiones, which is a nation of Germanic tribes mentioned by Tacitus as living in inland Germany.
Tacitus also agrees that the Chatti were Germanic.

>testimony from someone that actually met the Batavians and clearly stated that they weren't Germans
vs
>some random etymology created by g*rman wewuzzers

kys

>Chatti
Why are you moving the goalposts ?

>testimony from someone that actually met the Batavians and clearly stated that they weren't Germans
Hardly. He distinguished them from other Germanic tribes, but that doesn't mean he didn't consider them Germanic. Furthermore, Tacitus quite clearly considered the Chatti to be Germanic, and he wrote that the Batavi were a tribe of the Chatti that split off. So your own source proves you wrong. I also provided testimonies from Strabo and Pliny the Elder, who agree with the stance that the Chatti and thus the Batavi were Germanic.

>Why are you moving the goalposts ?
The Batavi and Chatti are closely linked. If the Chatti were Germanic, the Batavi were too. Tacitus wrote that the Batavi were a constituent part of the Chatti who split off following an internal dispute.

>my source proves me wrong
>my source clearly distinguishes batavians and g*rmans

>my source writes that Batavians were a splinter group of a tribe that my source clearly states is Germanic

>no proof

Just empty claims as usual

Tacitus wrote that the Batavi were a splinter group of the Chatti. Tacitus, Strabo and Pliny the Elder wrote that the Chatti were Germanic.

Now, where is your proof that the Batavi were Celtic?

>Tacitus wrote that
[citation needed]

Are you really stooping this low?

The Batavians were definitely Germanic, and spoke Germanic.
You're not going to substantiate them being non-Germanic from Roman sources, especially Tacitus

Are you Polish by chance?

You seem quite motivated to hate the Germanics, which you seem to conflate with modern day Germans. Bit pathetic.

>still no quote from germanic

So i was right and you're indeed lying

>hate the Germanics
The entire planet hates you and it is fully deserved :)

>still no quote from germanic
from Tacitus*

Here you go
>Omnium harum gentium virtute praecipui Batavi non multum ex ripa, sed insulam Rheni amnis colunt, Chattorum quondam populus et seditione domestica in eas sedes transgressus, in quibus pars Romani imperii fierent.

Maybe you could find some people who hate Germanics as much as you in a Danzig mental asylum

It seems that Chatti were not Germans then

>The first ancient writer to mention the Chatti is Strabo, some time after 16 AD, who includes the Chatti in a listing of conquered Germanic tribes
>Pliny the Elder, in his Natural History (written 77–79 AD) grouped the Chatti and Suebi together with the Hermunduri and the Cherusci, calling this group the Hermiones, which is a nation of Germanic tribes mentioned by Tacitus as living in inland Germany.

>Specify which Germanic tribes weren't Germanic.
Specify which ancient real Prussian-Baltic tribe wasn't Prussian-Germanic.

None, in both questions.

>Wikipedia
>A Source

Anyway, "German" is a roman invention

Greek sources are clear that the Celts were spread from Iberia to the Danube.

You can check the actual sources on the Chatti Wikipedia page if you so wish.

>Greek sources are clear that the Celts were spread from Iberia to the Danube.
This doesn't mean that a tribe living at the mouth of the Rhine couldn't have been Germanic. In fact, it doesn't even imply that. Also:
>implying tribal ethnicities in Iron Age Europe were static

how did you know my name?

>None of them

>germanics invaded from the south
Proto-Indo-Europeans that would become Germanics invaded from the south*

Fucking this

>archeocuck finds rowgrave cemteries in Swabia : "A fine german work indeed."
>archeocuck finds rowgrave cemteries in Gaul : "That's frankish immigrants for you heheheheheehe."
>archeocuck finds no row cemteries in the so called Frankish homeland : "Day uzed cremation but later invented DAA 1000% GERMANIC row grave civilization and imported it in Gaul hehehehhee."