Danes and Denmark

[Ánleifr]

When did the Danes inhabit Denmark, before or after the Angles, Jutes and Saxons?

[The Lawspeaker]

How about: they are partially the same people ? They are their descendants and the descendants of the tribe of the Danes.

[The Alchemist]

I just think they're the most beautiful in the world ;D Sorry for not being helpful..

[Albion]

When did the Danes inhabit Denmark, before or after the Angles, Jutes and Saxons?

Okay - long story short:

The tribe called the Danes originally only inhabited the Danish Islands and Scania in Southern Sweden (Sweden nicked it). Danes were North Germanic speakers - Scandinavians.
The Jutes inhabited Jutland but were weakened when many of their people went off to settle in England. Eventually the Danes extended their control to Jutland and created the Kingdom of Denmark. The Jutes were West Germanic and their language would have been similar to old English or old Frisian. Gradually they came to speak North Germanic and the North Germanic dialect of the Kingdom of Denmark developed into a language - Danish.

Latter on the Vikings that invaded England from Denmark mainly came from Jutland. So the Jutes basically settled England twice really.


Denmark was part of the area where the Germanic culture first formed. The Germanics developed from Indo-Europeans mixing with the native inhabitants of Northern Europe.

As for Angles and Saxons - they don't come into it, they lived further south in today's Germany. The Angle homeland is very close to the Danish border but on the German side. It was depopulated and described as being devoid of people once the Angles left for England. It seems the whole tribe left which is unusual because usually some would stay behind.

[Vasa]

Okay - long story short:

The tribe called the Danes originally only inhabited the Danish Islands and Scania in Southern Sweden (Sweden nicked it). Danes were North Germanic speakers - Scandinavians.
The Jutes inhabited Jutland but were weakened when many of their people went off to settle in England. Eventually the Danes extended their control to Jutland and created the Kingdom of Denmark. The Jutes were West Germanic and their language would have been similar to old English or old Frisian. Gradually they came to speak North Germanic and the North Germanic dialect of the Kingdom of Denmark developed into a language - Danish.

Latter on the Vikings that invaded England from Denmark mainly came from Jutland. So the Jutes basically settled England twice really.


Denmark was part of the area where the Germanic culture first formed. The Germanics developed from Indo-Europeans mixing with the native inhabitants of Northern Europe.

As for Angles and Saxons - they don't come into it, they lived further south in today's Germany. The Angle homeland is very close to the Danish border but on the German side. It was depopulated and described as being devoid of people once the Angles left for England. It seems the whole tribe left which is unusual because usually some would stay behind.

Somewhat right, but also many faults.

Danish is not what you call "north-germanic", its right definition is old norse, more specifik east norse. Swedish and danish is dialects of east norse.

Also, Scania have always been land of dispute between Sweden and Denmark, not just something that was danish and got nicked by the swedish as you put it.

I forgot to mention the jutes did not stop exist because of they weakened and falled under so the danes took control. What really happened was the tribes and chiefs went together to create a united Reich and so the jutes got assimilated into this united reich. And they were north-germanic, not west-germanic.

[Albion]

Somewhat right, but also many faults.

Danish is not what you call "north-germanic", its right definition is old norse, more specifik east norse. Swedish and danish is dialects of east norse.


Yes - Old Norse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_norse) is classified as North Germanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Germanic_languages) whereas Old English is West Germanic.
I thought it too early to be talking of Old Norse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Norse_language) when writing that which is why I used the broad term "North Germanic".


Also, Scania have always been land of dispute between Sweden and Denmark, not just something that was danish and got nicked by the swedish as you put it.

It has, but for the greater part of history it has been Danish and for much longer than it's been part of Sweden. Upon the formation of Denmark Scania was included. Sweden formed further north east (in the Svea lands) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedes_(Germanic_tribe)) and only extended further south when it took control of the Geats. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geats)

Most Germanic nations formed from a combination of the old tribes, the situation in Sweden is interesting though:


Based on the lack of early medieval sources, and the fact that the Geats were later part of the kingdom of Sweden, traditional accounts assume a forceful incorporation by the Swedes, but the only surviving traditions which deal with Swedish-Geatish wars are of semi-legendary nature and found in Beowulf. The actual story in Beowulf, however, is that the Geatish king helps a Swede to gain the throne. What historians today think is that this realm could just as well be the force behind the creation of the medieval kingdom of Sweden. The historians make a distinction between political history and the emergence of a common Swedish ethnicity. The, so far more or less imagined, Swedish invasion of Geatish lands has been explained with Geatish involvement in the Gothic wars in southern Europe, which brought a great deal of Roman gold to Götaland, but also naturally depleted their numbers (see Nordisk familjebok).


Today, historians believe that the medieval kingdom of Sweden was created as a union to oppose foreign forces, mainly the Danes, where the mainly inland Västergötland was easier to defend and be protected in than in the coastal areas.[9] According to Curt Weibull, the Geats would have been finally integrated in the Swedish kingdom c. 1000, but according to others, it most likely took place before the 9th century, and probably as early as the 6th century.[9] The fact that some sources are silent about the Geats indicates that any independent Geatish kingdom no longer existed in the 9th century.


After the 15th century and the Kalmar Union, the Swedes and the Geats appear to have begun to perceive themselves as one nation, which is reflected in the evolution of svensk into a common ethnonym.[10][11] It was originally an adjective referring to those belonging to the Swedish tribe, who are called svear in Swedish. As early as the 9th century, svear had been vague, both referring to the Swedish tribe and being a collective term including the Geats,[10] and this is the case in Adam of Bremen's work where the Geats (Goths) appear both as a proper nation and as part of the Sueones.[10] The merging/assimilation of the two nations took a long time, however. In the early 20th century, Nordisk familjebok noted that svensk had almost replaced svear as a name for the Swedish people.[12]
Today, the merger of the two nations is complete, as there is no longer any tangible identification in Götaland with a Geatish identity, apart from the common tendency of people living in those areas to refer to themselves as västgötar (West Geats) and östgötar (East Geats), that is to say, residents of the provinces of Västergötland and Östergötland. The city Göteborg, known in English as Gothenburg, was named after the Geats (Geatsburg or fortress of the Geats), when it was founded in 1621.[citation needed]
Until 1973 the official title of the Swedish king was King of Sweden (earlier: of the Swedes), the Geats/Goths and the Wends (with the formula "Sveriges, Götes och Vendes konung"). The title "King of the Wends" was copied from the Danish title, while the Danish kings called themselves "King of the Gotlanders" (which, like "Geats", was translated into "Goths" in latin) were also used by Danish royalty. The Wends is a term normally used to describe the Slavic peoples who inhabited large areas of modern east Germany and Pomerania.

The 15th Century is quite late compared to other Germanic countries and the Danes had by then been in Scania for centuries and it was an integral part of their kingdom.

As for Geats - some people suggest a link between them and the Jutes, with the Jutes perhaps being Geats who settled Denmark very early in history.

[Ánleifr]

Albion, are the Norwegians actually just Swedes that migrated West to what is now Norway?

[Albion]

Albion, are the Norwegians actually just Swedes that migrated West to what is now Norway?

No. Norway had different tribes to Sweden which consolidated into the Norwegians over time. Most modern Germanic peoples are descended from multiple tribes which were consolidated into larger ethnicities. Usually these tribes had much in common in the first place which aided in the consolidation process.

Scandinavians are closely related but they're not the same - they're close, but different.
Norwegians are just Norwegians. ;)

[Ánleifr]

No. Norway had different tribes to Sweden which consolidated into the Norwegians over time. Most modern Germanic peoples are descended from multiple tribes which were consolidated into larger ethnicities. Usually these tribes had much in common in the first place which aided in the consolidation process.

Scandinavians are closely related but they're not the same - they're close, but different.
Norwegians are just Norwegians. ;)

Thanks, do you know what tribes would have made up present day Norway?

[Albion]

Thanks, do you know what tribes would have made up present day Norway?

The Norwegians existed as a single tribe before becoming a kingdom, but they're one of the confederation-type tribes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederations_of_Germanic_tribes) - a merger of smaller, older tribes. (Just like the Saxons were).
If we go back further to the Iron Age then this map and article may point you in the right direction. We know little about the tribes there at this period in history.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Scandza.PNG
Notice how the Danes span the Danish Islands and Scania (Southern tip of Sweden)?

See this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandza) and scroll down to "inhabitants" and you'll find some info and a few tribes there.

The Rugi in Norway are interesting - they may have been the same Rugians that were latter found in Rugen Island, Germany. The Wendish Slavs then invaded that island and assimilated the Germanic inhabitants and called themselves "Rugians" too until the island was recaptured for the Germanics and was basically re-Germanized.

[Pallantides]

There were also some non-Germanic peoples living in south Norway just thousand years ago(Svåse or Svási the Finn king of Dovre was obviously not Germanic:D) and they mixed with the Norse(Svåse's daughter Snøfrid married Harald Fairhair and they had 5 children together)

[Albion]

There were also some non-Germanic peoples living in south Norway just thousand years ago(Svåse the Finn king of Dovre was obviously not Germanic:D) and they mixed with the Norse(Svåse's daughter Snøfrid married Harald Fairhair and they had 5 children togheter)

Yes, the ancestors of the Sami and Finnic peoples extended much further south in Norway and Sweden in the past.
I always thought that the Norwegians and Swedes would have absorbed a lot of them but the Germanic purity nuts at Skadi always argued otherwise. Some would have fled north, but I think most were absorbed myself.

[Rødskjegg]

Southern Norway and Sweden was inhabited before the Sami arrived in Scandinavia.

[Pallantides]

Yes, the ancestors of the Sami and Finnic peoples extended much further south in Norway and Sweden in the past.
I always thought that the Norwegians and Swedes would have absorbed a lot of them but the Germanic purity nuts at Skadi always argued otherwise. Some would have fled north, but I think most were absorbed myself.

Well most of the East Norwegian participants on the Eurogenes project score around 1-2% Siberian while Danes and most of the West Norwegians score little to no Siberian at all(modern Saami are usually 5-7% Siberian)

[Albion]

Southern Norway and Sweden was inhabited before the Sami arrived in Scandinavia.

I thought the Sami were aboriginal to the North with latter input from the Finnics whilst the Germanics were native to the south (via their predecessors' cultures). :confused:

[Pallantides]

I have a thread about the Saami presence in South Norway here: http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42805

[Albion]

Well most of the East Norwegian participants on the Eurogenes project score around 1-2% Siberian while Danes and most of the West Norwegians score little to no Siberian at all(modern Saami are usually 5-7% Siberian)

Isn't there any better way than looking for Siberian admixture? Have any skeletal remains been tested - do we know any results for the Sami in past centuries? Basically are the Sami diluted Siberians or has the Siberian admixture always occurred at around the same level?

Maybe I've got this wrong but I thought maternally they were aboriginal Euro, paternally Finnic?
I don't think Siberian admixture is what we should be looking for though, I don't think they should be too different from their Germanic neighbours to be honest. The Germanics in Scandinavia descend from both the aboriginal inhabitants and Indo-European invaders - Sami seem to reflect the aboriginal inhabitants which didn't settle and start farming.

[Pallantides]

They have tested the remains of three Swedish hunter & gatherers from Gotland and they were closer to Poles than they were modern Swedes:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48166



The Siberian I find interesting because it seem to be lacking in the West Norwegians, but show up at 1-2% in East Norwegians, it have to come from somewhere right?

[Albion]

They have tested the remains of two Swedish hunter & gatherers from Gotland and they were closer to Poles than they were modern Swedes:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48166



The Siberian I find interesting because it seem to be lacking in the West Norwegians, but show up at 1-2% in East Norwegians, it have to come from somewhere right?

Well that's Gotland. Islands are always a bit different from the mainland because it was easier to travel by water in the past. I also noticed this in the post:


So I think it's pretty clear we're dealing here with an individual of mostly deep East Mediterranean origin, who's ancestors made their way from West Asia to Europe via maritime routes (settling islands like Sardinia in the process), and then to Scandinavia via Western and Central Europe. They probably picked up their minority, although substantial, Northern European admixture in what is now Germany or Scandinavia. Of course, the other option is that the Mediterranean farmers went straight to Scandinavia by boat.

I don't think these two individuals will have much to do with the Sami or former hunter-gatherers of mainland Scandinavia. I'd like to see results from Ertebølle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erteb%C3%B8lle) remains, that'd be a good starting point.

[Pallantides]

That's the Neolithic farmer, he is unrelated to the three Hunter & Gatherers.

the three Neolithic hunter gatherers appeared largely outside the distribution of the modern sample, but in the vicinity of Finnish and northern European individuals (Fig. 1A). In contrast, the Neolithic farmer clustered with southern Europeans, but was differentiated from Levantine individuals

[Ánleifr]

so if the Jutes would have stayed put and thrived as a tribe in Jutland they would certainly be considered Scandinavian just like the Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, would you agree?

[Albion]

so if the Jutes would have stayed put and thrived as a tribe in Jutland they would certainly be considered Scandinavian just like the Swedes, Danes and Norwegians, would you agree?

I'm not sure, possibly. the Jutes in England were considered a bit "odd" compared to the other tribes which settled. However this could be in part because the Jutes in England came under heavy Frankish influence (especially Kent).

If the Jutes had stayed put in Jutland I think they'd still be considered Scandinavians today and possibly either a separate kingdom or united with the Danes as their descendants there currently are.

[Siginulfo]

The Danes previously inhabited the Danish islands, then, when the Jutes and Angles went to Britain, they took possession of the uninhabited lands of them.

[Albion]

The Danes previously inhabited the Danish islands, then, when the Jutes and Angles went to Britain, they took possession of the uninhabited lands of them.

Jutland wasn't abandoned - many stayed behind but their numbers were depleted.
You wouldn't really leave Jutland to go to England if you didn't need to - it'd be a massive upheaval fraught with risks. Lack of farm land and resources must have pushed a large part of the population to it.
Think about it - there would have been trade and contact between Britain and Jutland and quite a few of them would have seen the place or heard stories about it. My point is they'd have had a good idea of what it was like, and what it is like is similar to Jutland. Jutes wouldn't have headed to Eastern England unless they were after something and what they were after was new lands IMO. They sure weren't heading south for the weather anyway.

The ones that stayed behind were less numerous in number and so were incorporated into the Danes. The population pressure was relieved though, overpopulation was more easily reached in those days.

[Ánleifr]

they list some here and this depicts ancient scandi

http://www.burzum.org/eng/library/paganism09.shtml