This blog will focus on historical accuracy and reconstructionism but also on the contemporary religion and sometimes wander into other heathenry, like Anglo - Saxon faith, Odinism, Theodism and so on.
There will however never be any bigotry, homophobia, anti Semitism or stupid ideas of a "pure" Germanic race.
It is true this map says “predominant”, but it still lumps large groups like Slavs together while it is almost detailed about Germanic groups.
It is historical hogwash though. There are no Saxons or Franks today. And if you insist on using those migration period, terms i would not be “Scandinavian” but Gauti (or at least “Norse”).
Anyone in Sweden (exept to a part the Saami) sees themselves as ethnical Swedes regardless of tribe.
One time period or the other please.
Oh, and btw: Icelanders are not Scandinavian. If you are thinking of the viking settlers the term is “Norse”, if you are thinking of modern Icelanders the term is “Nordic”.
Besides, Icelanders probably has Q Celtic genes too (via Scotland and Ireland).
Many have complained about ending up in the wrong “group” (where i found this map) large parts of northern Italy is really Celto - Germanic as well as Romance for instance.. France and Benelux are Celto - Germano _ romance as well.
Sicily has Germanic genes (via the Normans and Vandals).
The Saami of Scandinavia are far more spread (FAR MORE), Spain and Portugal are put down as Celtic and “near eastern” (what fucking ethnicity is that???) and the Germanic influence of the Visigoths, Suebi and the Vandals are skipped over (you find a lot of Germanic loan words in modern Portuguise),
Scotland is put down as “Scots” (The Scoti are actually Gaels = Irish, so technically partly correct), In actuallity the Scottish people are a mix of Gaelic, Pictish, Anglo - Saxon and Norse (Scandinavian, mainly Norwiegian and Danish).
The Irish are put down as Irish Celts (???). If you use the terms Scots for Scotland (Scoti = The Roman term for Gael) you should do so for the Irish too.
Either Scots OR Gaels OR Q Celtic.
In actuality the Irish people are a mix of Gaels, Scandinavian and Romance (via the very “French” Normans) genes.
Whole Scottish Clans are of mainly Scandinavian origin MacDonald, MacIver (Ivarson) MacAuley (Olofsson), Gordon, MacLaeod to mention a few.
Scots, Doric (Scotland), Ulster Scots and the extinct Norn (Shetland, Orkney) are actually Germanic languages.
Gaelic and Manx (Isle of Man) are Q Celtic languages originating in Ireland.
Balts (???) as Slavic? Ever heard of Estonians. Estonians are Finnic not Slavic.
ALL of northern Africa is put down as Berber??? . There are other large groups, Semitic and Copts for instance. Sarmatian being another.
Russians are put down as distinct from Slavs witch is not incorrect in a sense. Russia probably got it´s name from Germanic peoples (mainly from Sweden according to theory) and as a country has many etnicities like Saami and other Finnic groups. True, the confusing and rather scetchy colour field indicate Uralo - Finnic in the north and and Slavo - Germanic in a little clique but it is so simplified that it´s almost comical to anyone with a bit of a historic interest.
Then we have the problem with the term “ethnic”. Are we talking “blood?” If so you can take any area of Europe and probably find a mix of Germanic, Celtic, Slavic and Romance genes AND culture.
I can prove that there where Arabs in Scandinavia (at least Denmark), being a part of society and sharing the (“heathen”) religion during the iron age.
I can prove (we are talking DNA, Strontium, anthropology, and archeology in general here.) that people travelled all the way from the Alps to eastern England in Neolithic times (stone age).
A normal Englishman most probably have Brythonic (P Celtic), Romance (Romans and later Normans, even if they where mainly Germanic), Anglo - Saxon and Scandinavian genes.
If we go by culture or linguistics the same mix applies. And then ALL of these groups are in turn mixed up the same way.
Germanic and Celtic groups interacted so much that they where sometimes undistinguishable to the Romans (and some tribes still are).
The terms Germani and Keltoi where of Roman and Greek origin anyway (speaking of lumping together).
Groups like the Ostrogoths interacted the same way with Slavic tribes.
And then we have other ways of ethnic identification, like religion. If “Christian” was the ethnic group with witch a viking identified himself, and “Asatru” (in lack of a better term) the way another viking in the same area identified (witch was in a sense sometimes the case at the start of the high middle ages in Scandinavia), they would have “Norse” as an ethnicity in common but still see themselves as religously (and thus to a part culturally) different ethnicities.
Serious anthropology and ethnology can never make a simple map or diagram describing something as complex as mans sense of “group” or belonging through history and pre history since the dawn of mankind.
My father is African, still both he and i consider me Germanic, Scandinavian (and Gautish to be extreme. That is i am of the Gauti / Götar tribe).
He counts himself as Creole. However, part of the mix that makes him Creole is Portuguise and Spanish (thus probably including Sephardic Jews, Moorish blood….oh, and he has some Chinese).
Funny though, the Suebi where in nothern Portugal, the Vissigoths where all over Spain and Portugal and the Vandals passed too.
So he would (possably, actually probably) have several strains of Germanic genes (as well as Romance, Carthagian, Celtic) witch might even bring us back to Sweden (some theories says that the Vandals and Goths came from Sweden and most accept that the “Germanic” peoples as a distinguishable group originated in southern Sweden ,Scania, and Denmark anyway (proto Germanic, around 500 BC).
Sorry! I´m simply far to interested in European history / ethnology / anthropology / archeology to have it simplified into some romantic doodle.