A Big F You

> Denmark has been voted 'the happiest country' a couple of times.
> Greenland is the saddest country (suicides number says so).
> Greenland belongs to Denmark

> Conclusion: Danes are happiness vampires.

@Arsen It only makes sense. There is no other explanation.

@Arsen Yeah, we do tend to suck a lot

@Arsen But Iceland is the one that sparkles...

@Arsen I clap and bow

'@Arsen' so where are the faroes

@Arsen "GASP" :O "wait i thought Romania was teh vampire... unless.... DENMARK AND ROMANIA ARE TEH SAME PEOPLE! :O nu wait, nvm, that cant be, that was proven in the comic Child of the Night" :P

And so, the Sami/Greenland shipping begins.

@themunck Shipping? That happens here too? And here I thought Hetalia made people horny. Haha. and before that I never thought people would ship or make yaoi our of national personifications.

@mrnewwanderer If you think Hetalia gets people horny get ready for spikes here XD

@themunck I SHIP IT

Wrong skin colour of the Sami, yes many is dark hair but most are pale. My gran was pale as snow, dark haired and had deep blue eyes, my third cousin is pale and blond and brown eyed but it just that , we dont look like Mongolians, we are pale skinned.

@smalandia I think she looks more like a Native American, but yeah, I agree. I didn't think about it before you said it.

Just want to point out that the norwegians, swedes and finish people are indigenous to the north of Scandinavia too, and that we have shared the space for millenias. As a majority we have not treated the Sami people any good, rather the oppositi, but it's not like we stole their land and drove them off or something.

'@Siljevalkyrie'
Yeah I've always scratched my head when I hear some Scandis call them indigenous when everyone's been up there since Forever Ago BC. The Finns are even ethnically related to the Sami!
It's like people are taking the New World/Greenland example and applying it where it doesn't really belong.
The Sami relation to Swedes and Norwegians might be better compared to like...Irish and English? Both from those islands, but one got stronger by a lot and came to abuse the other.

@sagas

Uh, we're only partially related to the Sami, and even that is due to the shenanigans that transpired after a motley collection of tribes arrived from the West and the South and became our ancestors.
Those same tribes displaced the Sami, who WERE there before us...

'@DarkMage7280'
At best that just means the Sami were in the first wagon of the same migration that brought the other Finno peoples lol. Not that they were forever there. All evidence suggests that the Uralic language family developed further east to at least the Ural mountains and came west.

Now of course this is simplified kind of though. It's super likely that there were already people living in Finland and Lapland alike before those languages and cultures came. And that (like with Japan as I was just talking elsewhere) the mix of the migrants and who was already there produced the start of both what we now think of as Sami and Finns.
So whose culture and language was there before you guys? Who knows!
Heck even the Scandinavians and their language got altered by similar type situations (Indo-European migrations).

Probably the literal only remaining European language from before major migrations is Basque. Though I guess that depends on what you count the Caucasian Mountains as.

@sagas
Not quite.
The classical understanding is that the Uralic language family developed to the north of where indo-european developed. So, Uralic is nowhere to the east. It is to the north, especially when concerning indo-europeans. Before that there was indo-uralic language subgroup.

One could say that contemporary Uralic is Uralic 2, which superseded the older Uralic 1. Indo-european would in that respect be Uralic 3. So, both indo-european and Uralic 2 developed from the mix of Uralic 1 and old caucasian (kartvelian, ossetian, etc.) languages. Thus, genetically and linguistically speaking, at least Uralic 2 has continuity with Uralic 1.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
Exhibit A right here of how nutty romantic nationalists really really don't like thinking their cultural markers came from farther away lol. Noooo my language family is totes from around here!!!
(thanks also for talking about Indo-Uralic like it's an established thing and not 100% theoretical)

@sagas
You either have to accept indo-uralic, or you have to accept that what is indo is not european and what is european is not indo. Much of the development of indo-european branch has been ingrained into the uralic branch.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
Imprints of other languages in a different family do not a genetic link make.
This is one of those really basic things about linguistics bro.

@sagas
There is more. Much more.
Like this:
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.ee/2015/05/the-origins-of-proto-indo-european.html

There is more of that.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
That doesn't sound like it's supporting or even attempting to support the Indo-Uralic theory. He mentions it in passing on the way to the main discussion of Proto-Indo-European.
In fact in that passing he seems to be doing more to give reason to doubt it?
Did you read this?

@sagas
I did read it.
And it does support indo-uralic.
Both in the sense of a phylogenetic tree and in the sense of a sprachbund.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
Then cite from the source instead of gesturing at it and expecting me to see the same animal in the cloud.

@sagas
The solid science will eventually be repeated in other science papers. So if my claims hold true then it would be backed up in future papers. Until then it is just that - claims of someone on the Internet. And you can take it as that - no more, no less.
PS. Disclaimer: I am not a linguist.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
Uh I just asked you to cite from the paper...

@sagas
Fine, I cite figures 1 and 2 ;-)

As to wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Uralic_languages

As to possible loanwords, the wiki explanations are somewhat lacking.
While the IE 'sata(m)' means "a hundred", in baltic-finnic 'sata / sada' also means "a hundred".
But the related forms also mean:
sadama / sataa = to rain
sadu = (the) rain
sato = (crop) harvest
saak = harvest, but also a captured prey animal
saada / saama = to gain, to get

A funny side-remark, that 'gain' =~ finnic 'kiinni / kinni', meaning "capture / get hold of / stuck".
And 'get' =~ finnic 'käteen / kätte', meaning "into your hands, into your grasp".

With the 'koningaz -> kuningas', it is likely a loan to finnic, but the stem 'ko(o)n(d)-' is more likely common to eurasiatic or indo-uralic, since finnic languages have a lot of words stemming from it.

Thus it is not at all clear that the stems were exclusively IE.
And thus the wiki claims are partially lacking when claiming that:
[Such words as those for 'hundred', 'pig', and 'king' have something in common: they represent "cultural vocabulary" as opposed to "basic vocabulary."[original research?] They are likely to have been acquired along with a more complex number system and the domestic pig from the more advanced Indo-Europeans to the south.]

Of the 'more common vocabulary' mentioned in the wiki ('me', 'hand', 'water', and 'be') all have some corresponding similar words in finnic.

The wiki comparison of number systems neglects to entertain the possibility that the PIE borrowed the number system from the south, while uralic retained theirs. The uralic words for 1-10 suggest an uralic sprachbund.
-----
So, even while both IE and uralic are part of a larger eurasiatic group, the fact that the crucial development of both was side-by-side both in space and time ties them closer together than the rest of the eurasiatic macrogroup. The alternative would be to admit that IE and uralic did not develop side-by-side in space and time, which would make the origin of IE non-european.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
I meant citation from the article, which as far as I could tell wasn't even about the concept, but mentioned the theory existing.
Wikipedia is a good reference for quick dirty summaries, not proving a linguistic theory lol.

@sagas
It was relevant in that it provided more reasoning on the space and time of the development of PIE.
The development of proto-uralic was right there in the vicinity, at least based on the language-tree approach. The uralic sprachbund approach would make it a bit more complicated.

So even if you refuse to see how that article relates to the development of uralic and the co-development of indo-uralic, does not mean that other people won't reassess the past situation. And by 'reassess' I don't mean 180-degree turns, but more subtle realignments and build from there.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
There are many theories in linguistics, merely mentioning them in an otherwise unrelated article is not strange nor is it an argument for the theory.
I'm not refusing, I'm explaining to you what you posted.
My main issue to begin with was you throwing around the theory like it was proven, rather than atm just a theory. Something you still don't seem to want to do, probably because you're resting some of your nationalism on it making Estonian's "more European" I'd wager.

@sagas
If uralic was 'created' 4500 years ago at the Volga bend, then it happened only in the vicinity of IE.
If uralic 'evolved' 6000 years ago or 7000 years ago at the Volga bend, then it still happened only in the vicinity of IE. No other eurasiatic language group is close to uralic at its 'evolution'.

So if the IE indeed evolved in the steppes near the Black Sea and Kaspian Sea and the Ural mountains, then IE and uralic form one subgroup within the eurasiatic macrogroup.

The only possibility of a lack of the subgroup would be if IE evolved outside of south-eastern Europe.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
None of this comes from nowhere, unless you're saying you're absolutely sure those exact locations are where those families evolved literally wholecloth from.

@sagas
Me saying does not mean much on this issue. That is why I noted that future science articles will tell.
Having said that, both were and are eurasiatic. Both evolved at the same region side by side. Both are already strongly suspected to form a subgroup together. The evidence will gather piece by piece, but by now I don't see any other worthy interpretation and that is why I took that categorical position. The other interpretation might be that there is no such a subgroup and in that case IE would probably not group together with any other eurasiatic family either. It would be an eurasiatic sprachbund.

@sagas
"This paper will attempt to show that these and other difficulties are caused, at least in large part, by the question of the origins of the Indo-European parent language."

Voila, the causes for 'difficulties' have been (partially) 'solved'.
Now onto solving the 'difficulties'.

'@ThorsomeTarmukas'
What does this have to do with Uralic? Let alone the specific theory?
And no I don't want your explanation, I want something from the paper itself. A citation.

@sagas
One can improve the probability of 'proof' by reducing the probability of possible 'disproval' pathways.
This article is a step in that direction.

@DarkMage7280 Well you are related to the swedes too, genetic research shows that most finns carry extensive indoeuropean genemarkers, true that could be from the russians too. My guess is that the proto finns were quite like the sami, perhaps as similiar as swedes and germans, perhaps as similair as germanic and slavs (we'll never know for certain) but prolonged contact with the germanic and slavic neighbours changed the finnish.

It's also worth noting that there are evidence to suggest germanic settlements on the western shores of finland before the finnish and sami arrived at the coastlands.

@TheDungen And to add to that, the linguistic proofs. When your name for ocean comes from Old Norse, it seems to suggest that the inlanders arrived later.

Sorry the (f)inlanders ;)

@Ferrari27
How exactly?
Does norwegian 'hav' equate finnic 'avo / ava'?
Or did you mean 'mare' against 'meri'?

You should be careful with drawing conclusions esp when the germanic 'whale' derives from finnic / uralic 'kala'.
Indo-uralic was a real thing, you know.
PS. There is a placename in Estonia containing 'meri / mere' which was last time a coastal area about 500 years before the Billingen event. That was epipaleolithic. And there are no waterbodies in the immediate neighbourhood of that placename.

@TheDungen Yes it's true, there is Germanic substrata in Finnish language and Germanic place-names. There was probably small slip of coastline inhabited by Germanics before Finnic peoples arrived. However it would not be correct to say 'Finland was Swedish before it was Finnish) as concepts of 'Finland' and 'Sweden' were completely anachronistic in that era.
Most of the Finland was Sami before it was Finnish, Sami place names encompass nearly all of Finland.

Re. taxing the Sami, EVERYONE did it. The Finns, Swedes, Danes/Norwegians, Karelians (later Russians)...some villages such Anaar (Inari) were visited by three tax collectors per year: first came a Finnish one and took most, then came Danish one and took what was left, then came a Russian and squeezed the every last bit out of the poor villagers...and the next year, the cycle began anew...

@DarkMage7280 Huh?

The Sami came from the east, and noone even suggests that it happened much before the birth of Christ. At that time there had been people living in Scandinavia for 10.000 years. And the Norse ancestors are probably at least 7 millenia old, or maybe even older, in the peninsula.

Are you talking about some part of Finland perhaps? Both the Suomi and the Sami shared the lands to the east of the Eastern Sea.

@sagas Actually the english are the result of a process more akin to the settlement of north america. With anglans and saxons colonising what would become the brittish isles and pushing the romanobrittish west into wales.
In fact there are historians who make a connection between the barbarian invasions of the germanic tribes, through the reconquista and on to the colonization of the new world.

'@TheDungen'
The English are nothing like North America. A better comparison would be South America.
Angles, Saxons, Juts and later various Vikings came to the isles. But the idea that they wiped out or diseased out the local Celts is absurd. They would have mixed in with them, and in some cases plenty of Celts would have culturally become Germanic even without intermarriage.
Throughout history the example of North America is in the minority.

I cant' say I find those historians to sound reputable honestly as that sounds like a sensationalist tagline for a pop history book rather than serious scholarship. For starters what does the Reconqusita have to do with either other thing? It's nothing alike to them.
But the idea that migrating tribes being pressured by steppe nomads has anything to do with budding naval powers looking to extract resources and find new trade routes is just silly.

@sagas From what I've read/seen English are genetically almost identical to Dutch and northern germans, and have a very large gap to the celts of wales and Ireland. For example James May from top gear was genetested and his ethnicity matched that of the upper rhine valley in Germany. However the English becomes generally closer to the welsh the more west in England you go but I also recall Reading that despite this there is a large difference gentically between welsh and the English living in western England still. The first anglo-saxons was actually invited to Britannia after the roman departure to work as a buffer to ongoing germanic raids, like the romans did on the continent, however this plan backfired.

'@Svenskefan'
Well you kind of argue against yourself here don't you? The English have a "huge" gap compared to the Celts...yet you're saying (correctly) that this is both variable among individual English people and across different areas of England.
Making my point that the very concept of the English ethnicity (like...all ethnicities) is one of cultural assimilation and mixture. Even in areas where the genetic legacy of the Germanic tribes and Vikings is stronger...none of those groups were the English either.
The English culture formed from the varying Germanics, Danes, and Celts swirling.
One can't present the story of the English as one of foreign colonials supplanting natives.

@Siljevalkyrie It wasn't really until Christianity came to Scandinavia, that the Sami started to be treated badly. Sadly they got hit hard when they first were treated badly, and the result of that are still visible today.

The vikings had good relations with the sami populations through trade. In Norway the northernmost viking chieftains did tax the Sami though, which makes perfect sense since those chieftains would likely be the ones with the most power in the region anyway.

Another fact I always liked, was that the vikings saw the Sami as a people that possessed great/er magical abilities. So it was somewhat common for viking men to marry sami Women, so that some of that magic would rub off.

@Nidhogg Incorrect. It wasn't until Industrialization arrived that the true oppression of the Sami began, an oppression that reached its height at the beginning of the 19th century.
Before that the Sami were highly valued by the coastal-dwellers and Swedish Crown as being a valuable source of income from an otherwise worthless area of land.
Lappland was mainly taxed through trade up until the late 17th century. Then came localized oppression with the Sami being drafted for Mines etc. Then (19th century) we see some major bullshit with forced conversions, forced labour, continual encroachment by foresting and mining companies. Then there were the confiscations of land, forced relocations etc to make way for the Swedish Hydropower expansion during the early and mid 20th century.

Christianity had nothing to do with it. Changing economic conditions and the rise of the nationstate had EVERYTHING to do with it.

@fiendishrabbit I would say that you are both right. The Sami people first got treated badly because of the Christianity, they burned drums and other Sami religious symbols and tried to make them christian. But then it got worse during the industrialization when they wanted the woods up here and the minerals in the ground and it was then they really took over.

@Siljevalkyrie I think people say that because the southern Norwegians came and imported their politics in the 1800s and they are uneducated. The northerners had lived in harmony with the Sami people, until the southerners treated them very badly.

Sami and Greenland giving finger guns to each other to the dismay of the colonizers is a beautiful thing

@LuthersMinion Both: "Ayyyyyyyy"

Sami <3 Could we have some more comics with her?

Accualy, Humon is wrong on two accounts concerning the sami. Understandable, as there are no sami in Denmark, but I still find it importand to correct her.

First of all, they are no more indigenous then germanic scandinavians, and no less. The debate concerning who came first can go on for days, but all in all, we dont know for sure who came first when the inland ice melted away, and it dosent realy matter. Both have lived in the Nordics for about eight thousand years.
Secondly, the sami have been treated badly, but not for long. They were accualy a very favored population group untill the 1800:s (at least in Sweden. I dont know about the sami in Norway before that period). The conflict we see today is mostly about the sami herders and germanic wood farmers (reindeers eat crops when they pass through, wich pisses the farmers off, but ofcourse the herders must get though and they have the lawful right to lett their animals feed from the forest), not about what happend in the 1800:s. However, many sami have imported the american situation between natives and "white settlers", and tries to apply it to their own situation, despite the fact that it is incorrect in terms of nordic history.

@Bloodblender the Sami/Saami were forced-sterilized (aka genocide) in Sweden. they weren't the only group targeted, of course. but this Eugenic sterilization of Sami/Saami people continued until 1980s, so fairly recently. (other groups to be force-sterilized were people with disabilities and until 2011 transpeople). it doesn't particularly matter who was first in a particular region, the similarities between Scandinavia and the United States is the methods used to target Native Americans and the Sami/Saami to oppress them (such as banning the use of their language, moving them,etc), and commit genocide. some of this similar behavior happened in Finland, too, so not like Sweden is only to blame, but there you go.

@altalemur
I forgot about the forced sterilization. That is true, and a very dark part of our history. However, our history is still very different compared to USA, as the germanic swedes hardly were foreign invaders.

@Bloodblender There's plenty of evidence suggesting that Sami people have been used, banished and otherwise been mistreated throughout the complete length of Swedish and prior kingdom's history. Now if this has much to do with modern contemporary conflicts, it's more of a case by case basis.

"indigenous then germanic scandinavians"

As you say, we can debate this for days on end, but in general, they are indigenous to the northern reaches of Scandinavia. Whereas germanic tribes has been more or less confined to the southern reaches.

Now regarding conflicts, it's a mish mash of all possible reasons, everything from personal vendettas, the fact that herding reindeers is not even breaking even, and as you say issues with landowners (with similar issues to reindeer herders) (though moose is a bigger issue altogheter) and you name it.

However as with all conflicts it escalates to a "Us VS Them" given time, and thus big guns like what "happened to sami XYZ 50 years ago" is brought up against "But you got more rights than I'll ever getzz" are brought forth.. -.-

@Zervo
Of course, my explanation was a major simplification. It is always more complex. However, prior to the 1800:s, the ill treatment of the sami can be recognized also in the ill treatment of other groups in Sweden. For example, the time when drums of the sami nojds were burned, so where "witches" further south.

@Bloodblender No, humon is correct. First of all, it is meaningless to ask questions like "who were first to settle the Nordics" as the entire concept of "Nordics" is relatively modern and cannot be projected 1000 years to the past. It's like asking, who are native people of Russia? Well, the Russians are natives on their own country. But the Russia also encompasses dozens, if not hundreds of indigenous peoples. What is known that the Saami once inhabited an area much larger than current 'Sapmi homeland' and thus, it is correct to portray them as indigenous people supplanted or colonized by invading population, even if the Swedes and Norwegians are also native within their modern borders (which is not the case with USA, Canadians etc).

Second, it is certainly true that the Sami were, to a degree, protected by strong laws and privilegies prior to 1800's. However, they were also taxed very heavily by their neighbours, to the point that the villages sometimes were abandoned to avoid tax collectors. Also, there are darker aspects such as Sami being treated as legal property, and tax collectors (the Birkarls) 'persuading' Sami women to perform sexual favours to them. In addition, the once huge Sami lands were gradually eroded by settles and invaders - by 1700 it was only like half of what it had been 400 years earlier. Sure enough, it actually got worse during the 19th century when nationalism ideals dictated forced assimilation of 'lesser cultures'. Particularly in Norway, and lesser extent in Sweden and Finland. Curiously, in Russia Sami were relatively well off until WW1, then it became LOT worse.

@cohkka
"No, humon is correct. First of all, it is meaningless to ask questions like "who were first to settle the Nordics" as the entire concept of "Nordics" is relatively modern and cannot be projected 1000 years to the past. It's like asking, who are native people of Russia? Well, the Russians are natives on their own country. But the Russia also encompasses dozens, if not hundreds of indigenous peoples. What is known that the Saami once inhabited an area much larger than current 'Sapmi homeland' and thus, it is correct to portray them as indigenous people supplanted or colonized by invading population, even if the Swedes and Norwegians are also native within their modern borders (which is not the case with USA, Canadians etc)".
We basicly have the same idea in this, but with different approach. What I am against is the idea that the sami is the only real natives in Scandinavia, wich is a far too common interpretation among sami thiese days.

"Second, it is certainly true that the Sami were, to a degree, protected by strong laws and privilegies prior to 1800's. However, they were also taxed very heavily by their neighbours, to the point that the villages sometimes were abandoned to avoid tax collectors. Also, there are darker aspects such as Sami being treated as legal property, and tax collectors (the Birkarls) 'persuading' Sami women to perform sexual favours to them. In addition, the once huge Sami lands were gradually eroded by settles and invaders - by 1700 it was only like half of what it had been 400 years earlier. Sure enough, it actually got worse during the 19th century when nationalism ideals dictated forced assimilation of 'lesser cultures'. Particularly in Norway, and lesser extent in Sweden and Finland. Curiously, in Russia Sami were relatively well off until WW1, then it became LOT worse".
I didnt know all that. Thank you for clarefying.

@Bloodblender Important thing to remember is that the Lapland (which, back then, meant 'land inhabited by Lapps', not the same what we mean by Lapland today) did not belong to any state. They had taxing rights, but the land was owned by Sami and there were laws to protect them. It was basically a reservate. Rulers of yore were extremely conservative - if there was a law, no matter how ancient and stupid, it was upheld and Sami lands were protected even though they had no military power. It was only in 17th century when this began to change, kings became more powerful and began to see Lapland as a colony to be exploited and colonized. This spelled doom for Sami culture, especially Forest Sami, who were easily supplanted or assimilated. The mountain Sami, or High Lapps, were more resistant to change which is why most Sami today are them, and originally much larger groups have disappeared. This creates an illusion that Sápmi is only a small sliver of land in falls of the Northern Lapland (as shown in horribly inaccurate Wikipedia map) when in reality they encompassed an enormous territory ranging from Norway to Russia.

As per their own legends, Sami themselves are invaders, they tell stories of pre-existing race of giant men (Stallu) who inhabited Scandinavia before them. The legends probably are true since there are LOTS of ancient words in Sami language with unknown origin - likely borrowed from predecessor peoples.

@cohkka
Very interesting. Thank you for sharing.

@cohkka The Sea Sami is another group that has been almost assimilated. The former great diversity in the Sami groups can be seen in their language. Someone speaking south sami or lule sami, can barely understand someone speaking north sami.

The same goes for the east and west Greenlanders. The east Greenlandic culture and language is at the brink of extinction. And the country can't afford the internal fight, when the external enemy is so strong.

I don't care who came here first. The Sami are an indegenous people who have been treated horribly, and deserve respect. If you look at all the Nordic countries, the Icelanders and Faroese are probably the only ones who can claim to be the first settlers. There were some Irish monks there when the Vikings arrived to those islands, but monks don't make up very viable populations...

@cohkka About the Stallu, do you have any sources to the claim that they were a pre-sami human population of the area? I have tried googling it for a while now but I haven't found anything other than the Stallu were seen as a kind of monster that ate humans, similar to elves/trolls and other Nordic mythological creatures. Swedish and norwegian wikipedia mentioned different modern theories that they could have been stories about Birkarlar (tax collectors) or Scandinavian, russian or more eastern finnic raiders and whatnot else.

But I do find what you said about an earlier people the sami conquered interresting as well. A race of giants... Germanic people's are some of the tallest on Earth, what if was some kind of ancient Scandinavian tribe?

So anyway, I'm interrested in sources.

@Svenskefan Yes Stallu are trolls/giants in Saami legends. However in some stories they are clearly talked about as if they were a people and predecessors to Saami. Finns had similar legends about mythical giant predecessors called Jatuli or Meteli, probably either learned from Saami, or developed independently from same origin. I can't provide an English source right now, however in collected folklore such stories can be encountered, for example in books of Finnish folklorist Samuli Paulaharju. Norse of course had their own legendary giants, Jotunn. The name is very similar to 'Jatuli' and possibly Finns loaned the name from Norse, however Jotunn are otherwise quite different to Finnish/Saami giants. I don't think Birkarls are related to Stallu legends, they seem too recent. Saami also had the legend of mythical invaders, the Chudes, and Birkarls and other tax collectors are much better match to that.

"Mythical predecessors" are of course very common in legends everywhere, and often they are mentioned either gigantic (to explain various natural or manmade rock formations) or small (to explain why they are never seen). So it's hard to say if large size of the Stallu/Jatuli means anything. It is very interesting that Inuiti predecessor legends talk about people called 'Tuniit' who are described as large, but not very smart, clear parallel to Fennoscandian stories. In case of Tuniit, they can be easily connected to actual archaelogical culture, the Dorset. In Fennoscandia it's bit harder. It is possible too that Stallu acquired traits from latter peoples (Finns, Germanics, Chudes) as centuries passed and old myths were mixed up. As said, 'mythical predecessors' are common theme almost everywhere. Sometimes it's obvious they were completely mythical (Titans), in some cases they may have been real but acquired mythical characteristics (Chudes, Tuatha de Danaan), in some cases it's easy to prove they existed (Etruscs).

Linguistically, Saami language has a strong substrate - layer of borrowed words of relatively recent origin which are not loaned from any currently known language. This has always been obvious but only in recent years it has been studied in greater detail, from example by Finnish linguistic Ante Aikio. These words were probably loaned something like few centuries BC, or 400-500AD latest, implying that that's when modern Saami expanded to Lapland.

@cohkka Not a big deal, perhaps, but I'm not aware of the Sami ever being supplanted in any of their traditional lands. It is true, however, that they were thoroughly assimilated in many places through intermarriage with Scandinavians and/or Finns over several generations, to the point that their descendants today may be unaware of their Sami ancestry. Cultural assimilation and "shaming" in the 19th and 20th century only added to this, of course. They (or their genes, if you prefer) are still there, though, there was no ethnic cleansing in the modern sense.

@Maitreya No, there were plenty of instances where Sami were forcefully driven away from their lands. For example modern Kuusamo region in Finland, where huge influx of (illegal) immigrants occupied the lands of two Sami villages, forcing most of the inhabitants to move northwards. Sami were also driven away from modern Kolari & Muonio ca. 1500. In Kola peninsula, Russian monasteries, settlements and trade towns destroyed several Sami villages - by end of 19th century, many Kola Sami lived as roadside beggars. And this is just what we know from historical records, as said, nearly all of Finland was once Sami.

@cohkka I see. I wasn't aware the history of the Sami in Finland was so different from their history over here. Not that they haven't been terribly mistreated in Norway, mind you, but what you describe sounds unlike anything I've read or heard of here. I suspect Norwegian Sami may have benefited from the simple fact that there weren't very many Norwegians in the Sami heartland until relatively (in a historical sense) recently.

@Maitreya Yes, Saami lands in Finland and Karelia (and later in Sweden) were very attractive for colonists and assimilation/supplanting process began very early. In Modern Era, Saami were treated relatively well in Finland but of course by then only small enclave of their lands was left. Northern Norway and Kola peninsula maybe weren't so easy to settle so Saami were left on their own for much longer.

@Bloodblender Made an account on this site just to reply to this 3 month old comment, lol.
You're correct that the Sami may have moved in at the same time as Germanic Indo-Europeans. This is debatable, and personally I think they came in a couple hundred or maybe a thousand years earlier, but there's not a whole lot of evidence either way. In any case they came in *close* to the same time, historically speaking...
However, outside of one ridiculous theory, there's a pretty strong consensus this was *FIVE* thousand years ago. Not even close to eight thousand. It's possible that the Sami moved in around eight thousand years ago, but not even remotely likely that Germanic Scandinavians moved in that long ago.
Just wanted to clarify ^-^

@ValiantStag
Thank you for your add to the discussion.
I will not say that it is impossible that the sami came first to Scandinavia, but I find it improbable. Not that it matters much now as I would say that both populations should be seen as natives.
I very much doubt that the people wich would become the sami came as much as a thousand years before those that would become the north germanic population, tho.

But... but... but... Greenland kept our nice red/white design, so.. they can't hate us that much can they?
Plus, we're in the process of getting them a crap ton of the North Pole, so they can hopefully forgive us after that.

@Haitaka Not that there will be much of the North Pole left after the rest of us are finished melting it. But to be fair, Denmark is making more progress than almost anyone else on stopping doing that.

I ship Greenland and Sami now.

@SvalTheBard Me too :3

"indigenous people of Scandinavia" We are ALL the indigenous people of Scandinavia, Danes, Swedes. Norwegians, Finns, the Sami are just indigneous to the northernmost potion known as Lapland.

@rphb No, that is the common misconception. Current Lapland is only tiny remnant of the once huge Sami area. It's true that not all of Fennoscandia was once Sami, but much of it was.

@cohkka
That is true, but he is correct in that the sami were not necisarly the first to settle in the Nordics. The sami should be considerd natives, but not more so then north germanic or finnish peoples.