Talk:Fenni

Fenni, Phinnoi, (Skritfinni)

I was wondering if we should merge the articles Fenni and Phinnoi with some new content on the Screrefennae of Jordanes, the Scritobini of Paul the Deacon and the Scrithiphini of Procopius. We could use [1] as a source (with, of course, quotations). We could call it Classical references to the Sami people? What do you think? Please respond here. Harris Morgan 00:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC).

An overview of classical refernces to the Sami would be useful. But I think the question is whether to merge all the articles as suggested above, or to keep the seperate articles (and create new ones) and have a subsection with a short description in Sami history? Perhaps the best way to do this was to add a subsection to Sami history, and then decide whether a seperate article is necessary? Labongo (talk) 13:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'll start work on it later. What would you recommend I entitle this new section? 'Classical references'? Shall I place it imbetween 'Prehistory' and 'Before 15th century'? Harris Morgan 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

Great. How about 'Early references'? The history article is a mess, but as you suggest after 'Prehistory' is probably best. Labongo (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

SkiFenni may refer to Sami people. Northern Fenni may refer to whats modern finnish and russian karelian finnish now. Southern fenni may refer to whats estonian and russian ingrians now. The southern fenny may also refer to whats liethuanians and latvians now. On top of that theres the sarmatians who list fenni as sarmatian tribe. And if that where not enough, hungary belongs to fenno-ugric language group and has history with sarmatians. (And few other nomandic tribes coming from northeast.)

If you want to have a go at it I suggest that you edit Sami history and write references to fenni there. Then the same can be done with the estonians, finnish, karelian, igrian and douzen other fenno-ugric tribes whitout leaving vital information out.

Finnish people are agreeing on the fact that skifenni are the most likely sami people. I think finnish wiki had something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.177.30 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Landmass" between the Fenni and Bastarnae

One version of Tacitus states: "The Venedi have adopted many Sarmatian habits; for their plundering forays take them over all the wooded and mountainous highlands that lie between the Peucini and the Fenni.". To suggest that this means opposite end of the landmass from the the Black Sea to Baltic States/NW Russia is really synthesis. To suggest that Venedi had plundering forays across almost one thousand kilometres of an entire landmass is just not credible. Note that Ptolemy situates the "Phinnoi" as apparently dwelling to the East of the upper Vistula river (SE Poland), this location is closer to the Bastarnae, and Ptolemy does state the "Phinnoi" were once located below the Venedae. This region is also hilly, so it fits with Tacitus. Martintg (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent map

The map pictures the Fenni as a Balto-Slavic group, but the text of the article suggests there's nothing certain about their language, not even that they all spoke the same language. Daizus (talk) 01:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Where exactly do you see the Fenni classified as Balto-Slavic on the map? Please put on your glasses Daizus. Andrei (talk) 02:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited few articles in a row (mostly about Balto-Slavic tribes on your map). My point still stands, that section does not support a probable language for these Fenni (Finno-Ugric as your suggested on the map). Daizus (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

From the descriptions of Tacitus and Ptolemy, it is well possible that at least the southern Fenni/Phinnoi spoke Balto-Slavic dialects – although Tacitus describes the Fenni as having a simple lifestyle that does not fit any Indo-European-speaking group of the time well, as far as we know. An identification with Uralic-speaking tribes is seductive, but an identification with early Finnic speakers, at the time probably still resident in and limited to Estonia, seems unlikely. (The Sitones are more likely to be Uralic- and possibly Finnic-speaking, but Balto-Slavic is not excluded, either, nor even Germanic; but if they were found in northern Scandinavia, Balto-Slavic is excluded, and Uralic is unlikely, see below.) In the early 2nd century, it is likely that Sami was limited to the south of Finland and likely at least parts of Karelia, which does not fit very well either. Other Uralic-speaking groups in central Russia, hardly further south than the source of River Oka, would have been too far to the northeast too, I suspect. (However, this source is more positive about the possibility that Fenni in Eastern Europe could have been Uralic-speaking.)

If Tacitus' Fenni and Ptolemy's northern Phinnoi were really situated in Scandinavia, an identification with any documented group or language (family) is difficult – this is probably too early for Sami speakers to be widely distributed in Sweden and Norway. Rather, it is the Paleo-European substratum of Scandinavia that is called "Paleo-Laplandic" by Aikio that is the best candidate here. See Aikio 2016 and p. 39. Generally speaking, at the time in question, both Finnic and Sami speakers were located so far to the northeast, around the Gulf of Finland, that it is difficult to believe that Tacitus and Ptolemy were talking about them, especially in the case of the Sami speakers.

The situation is, however, completely different with Jordanes: at his time, the southwestern dialect of Common Sami must have been spoken in Central Scandinavia, in contact with Proto-Norse, and his Screrefennae at least can be thought of as Sami-speaking (although Paleo-Laplandic may still have survived to some extent as a home language). The Screrefennae, Finnaithae and mitissimi Finni may all have been Uralic-speaking groups, although it is possible that Paleo-Laplandic was still predominant in Norway and Sami dominant in central Sweden (alongside Proto-Norse), so that these groups may have spoken different languages. Given that Jordanes appears to talk about Scandinavia only in the portion in question, an identification of any of the groups with Finnic speakers east of the Baltic can probably be ruled out, or is at least unlikely, even if it might be seductive in the case of the mitissimi Finni especially. If all these groups were Uralic-speaking, I'd consider the identification of the Finnaithae with speakers of Sami in central Sweden or perhaps Westrobothnia and of the Screrefennae with possible Paleo-Laplandic speakers in Norway (for example in the region around Trondheim, where we later find South Sami, or even further north, implying that the Screrefennae eventually took over the language of the Finnaithae), but there seems to be a consensus that Finnaithae most likely refers to the (presumably Proto-Norse-speaking, although perhaps also partially Sami – these could be the mitissimi Finni though, who might have been mitissimi because they had a more "civilised" lifestyle than the Screrefennae of the north) inhabitants of Finnveden, so that the Screrefennae could also simply be the Sami of the more northern regions of Sweden and perhaps Norway. It's also possible that Finnaithae simply means the inhabitants of a region which is not wooded and was formerly the domain of non-Germanic-speakers (Proto-Germanic *finna-, see this source), who could have spoken Paleo-Laplandic or another, possibly related, Paleo-European language. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)