Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
This is quite a puzzle indeed. These are my current thoughts on the subject
Anyway, the key to the formation of modern Scandinavia was essentially the growth of the Frankish state. The Franks conquered the Saxons and forced conversion to Chrsitanity. In this period - the 9th century - the people to the the east of the Saxons are not Germanic. Only the people to the north are. Vital is the strengthening of the kingdom of Denmark. The building of the Danevirke is a statement by the Germanic king who is next in line for Saxon treatment. It doesn't happen that way though. Scandinavia becomes separated from the rest of the Germanic world by the Christianity.
This is why I do not mean to include Denmark in what I mean by the origins of Scandinavia before the Frankish period.
It is often claimed that the Goths originated in Scandinavia. This now seems highly unlikely. It rests on the testament of classical authors attempting to explain the Gothic origins, and the explanation was that they originated in the island of Scandia/Scandza - purportedly Scandinavia. These authors, it is now widely argued, simply made the stuff up because of the psychological and political conveniance of an Island home; it also happens to be tha case that archaeological evidence flies in the face of this story.
Anyway, Germanic languages are too close for this to be possible. King lists for Scandinavian kingdoms never date back before the 3rd century, and the earlist examples of FUTHARK runes do not date back before the 3rd century either. Moreover, Tacitus shows no awareness of a Germanic land to the north of Germany-Denmark...a strange fact considering the orientation of the later Germanic poem Beowulf and Tacitus's knowledge in general.
What appears to have happened is that, possibly due to the impact of the Romans, in the period of say 0 - 350, Germanic leaders spread across eastern Europe, covering the whole of Rome's northern (i.e. Rhenish and Danubian) frontier and to Scandinavia.
However, Julius Caesar's commentaries indicate that the Germans on the Rhine were new. They hadn't been there long before the 1st century BC. It is possible to suggest that this is related to the explosion of the Cimbri in 113 BC, with the Teutoni too. I don't know how much evidence there is that these people were Germanic, but historians seem to take it for granted, probably because later peoples calling themselves or being called Cimbri are placed in Jutland. Their leader Boiorix appears to have a Gaulish name, although "rix" maybe related to the "ric" of such later Gothic heroes as Alaric, Theodoric, etc.
So, where are the Germans coming from?
Historians don't seem to take this subject very seriously. The most learned books I've come across are content to do little more than state "northern Germany" or/and "Scandinavia". But they can't come from both.
Too often race comes into play. Germanic language and Nordic racial features are often associated. This is total nonsense. The Nordic racial type has nothing to do with language. It is a racial type that probably evolved over tens of thousands of years in the forested regions of the North European plain, stretching from France to Russia. The "racial purity" of Scandinavia owes more to the late retreat of the ice age, meaning that it either evolved there or that the Nordic people got there first, from wherever they actually originated.
But Finno-Ugric peoples possess just the same levels of Nordic trait frequency as Germanic Scandinavians, and that tells us that Nordic peoples were not originally Germanic. Finno-ugric languages clearly originate in the forests of north-eastern Europe - Indo-European languages do not; we have no idea where they come from. Anywhere from the Caucusus, Iran or the Altai Mountains is possible.
In order to explain one people's expansion, you must provide an explanation for superiority. Explaining Germanic expansion after the Imperial Roman period is easy; but not for the earlier period. I think this approach may hold the key. Any idea?
Another important factor to consider is the presence of the Vanir in Norse mythology. Tacitus lists Tiu as one of the mot important Gods. He is Aesir (Tyr), and they are all warrior gods. The Vanir are feeble, fertility Gods. Is this a clue by any chance? Is the militaristic mythology and culture of Germanic speaking society a means to distinguish indigenous Scandinavian tradtions?
Who were the indigenous (linguistic) inhabitants of Scandinavia - I mean, it's the same people in terms of genetics, but I am referring to language and culture. How did Germanic migration take place? Was it violent? What are the stages of the expansion? How far north to they get by, say, 400AD, by 500AD, by 600AD, by 700AD, by 800AD, etc?
Anyway, the key to the formation of modern Scandinavia was essentially the growth of the Frankish state. The Franks conquered the Saxons and forced conversion to Chrsitanity. In this period - the 9th century - the people to the the east of the Saxons are not Germanic. Only the people to the north are. Vital is the strengthening of the kingdom of Denmark. The building of the Danevirke is a statement by the Germanic king who is next in line for Saxon treatment. It doesn't happen that way though. Scandinavia becomes separated from the rest of the Germanic world by the Christianity.
This is why I do not mean to include Denmark in what I mean by the origins of Scandinavia before the Frankish period.
It is often claimed that the Goths originated in Scandinavia. This now seems highly unlikely. It rests on the testament of classical authors attempting to explain the Gothic origins, and the explanation was that they originated in the island of Scandia/Scandza - purportedly Scandinavia. These authors, it is now widely argued, simply made the stuff up because of the psychological and political conveniance of an Island home; it also happens to be tha case that archaeological evidence flies in the face of this story.
Anyway, Germanic languages are too close for this to be possible. King lists for Scandinavian kingdoms never date back before the 3rd century, and the earlist examples of FUTHARK runes do not date back before the 3rd century either. Moreover, Tacitus shows no awareness of a Germanic land to the north of Germany-Denmark...a strange fact considering the orientation of the later Germanic poem Beowulf and Tacitus's knowledge in general.
What appears to have happened is that, possibly due to the impact of the Romans, in the period of say 0 - 350, Germanic leaders spread across eastern Europe, covering the whole of Rome's northern (i.e. Rhenish and Danubian) frontier and to Scandinavia.
However, Julius Caesar's commentaries indicate that the Germans on the Rhine were new. They hadn't been there long before the 1st century BC. It is possible to suggest that this is related to the explosion of the Cimbri in 113 BC, with the Teutoni too. I don't know how much evidence there is that these people were Germanic, but historians seem to take it for granted, probably because later peoples calling themselves or being called Cimbri are placed in Jutland. Their leader Boiorix appears to have a Gaulish name, although "rix" maybe related to the "ric" of such later Gothic heroes as Alaric, Theodoric, etc.
So, where are the Germans coming from?
Historians don't seem to take this subject very seriously. The most learned books I've come across are content to do little more than state "northern Germany" or/and "Scandinavia". But they can't come from both.
Too often race comes into play. Germanic language and Nordic racial features are often associated. This is total nonsense. The Nordic racial type has nothing to do with language. It is a racial type that probably evolved over tens of thousands of years in the forested regions of the North European plain, stretching from France to Russia. The "racial purity" of Scandinavia owes more to the late retreat of the ice age, meaning that it either evolved there or that the Nordic people got there first, from wherever they actually originated.
But Finno-Ugric peoples possess just the same levels of Nordic trait frequency as Germanic Scandinavians, and that tells us that Nordic peoples were not originally Germanic. Finno-ugric languages clearly originate in the forests of north-eastern Europe - Indo-European languages do not; we have no idea where they come from. Anywhere from the Caucusus, Iran or the Altai Mountains is possible.
In order to explain one people's expansion, you must provide an explanation for superiority. Explaining Germanic expansion after the Imperial Roman period is easy; but not for the earlier period. I think this approach may hold the key. Any idea?
Another important factor to consider is the presence of the Vanir in Norse mythology. Tacitus lists Tiu as one of the mot important Gods. He is Aesir (Tyr), and they are all warrior gods. The Vanir are feeble, fertility Gods. Is this a clue by any chance? Is the militaristic mythology and culture of Germanic speaking society a means to distinguish indigenous Scandinavian tradtions?
Who were the indigenous (linguistic) inhabitants of Scandinavia - I mean, it's the same people in terms of genetics, but I am referring to language and culture. How did Germanic migration take place? Was it violent? What are the stages of the expansion? How far north to they get by, say, 400AD, by 500AD, by 600AD, by 700AD, by 800AD, etc?
What did the Vanir do in Norse mythology? It seems kinda bad to mention them as possibly vital to understanding it without saying what they did more than say the were feeble fertility gods.
) Nothing similar in Scandinavian mythology curiously - although most of our sources for this come from High medieval Iceland a 1000 years later 
)
