Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages

[alanarchae]

Rodoorn, there is no region in Europe where archaeological continuity has not been used to claim linguistic continuity. However, this method produces contradicting results, making the method totally unreliable. The fact remains that archaeological (or genetic) continuity cannot testify for linguistic continuity.
https://www.alkuperasivusto.fi/Uralic.html

Well the fact that certain claims have been made more often doesn't mean that this claim is not accurat. Because it is quit obvious, from BB times (2400 BC) unto migration times (400 AD) the population knew a great continuity and the fundament of it (in that specific area = outmost NW continental Europe) was Bell Beaker and nothing else. But correct me if I'm wrong.

There are also been more claims about what the people of what in the paper has been called Eastern North Sea population- the paper claims that is was "distinctive" and also "BB related"- would have been spoken.
g 
The only certainty from linguistic perspective withroof regard to the Dutch/NW German area we have is that with "In the Netherlands, IA Southern Scandinavians’ ancestry became dominant in the place of a distinct Eastern North Sea population." that this is contemporary with the occurance of kind of Germanic!

we are never going to have anything more than ancient DNA, archatology and perhaps (much more tricky) place make evidence  to infer languagesiaoevt is left  in Europe north of the Alps in prehistory history. But total genetic continuity of a bell beaker subgroup into the late Roman era is as good a proxy as there is ever going to be. It’s a known interface area through prehistory. Admittedly it’s possible that their elites could have adopted a number of different languages of the bigger networks to their east/NE, west or south but this area is not usually highlighted as one as a core powerful nodal zone of a network. It’s usually seen as a periphery. So i’m not sure the elite lingua franca model would fit. I do think the model of a bell beaker originated dialect; perhaps with moderate areal influences from west, north-east and south; would fit well. Bell beaker is undoubtedly highly convincingly correlated with the Celts-Italic branch so it stands to reason that that was a major component.

[Bollox79]

Table S2.
I26830 Noord-Holland, Wervershoof-Zwaagdijk Netherlands WesternEurope Netherlands_MBA H3v+16093 R1b R1b1a1b1a1a2e1 NA 0_2_1_2_2_2_2_1_2_1 0_2_1_2_WEuMl
Klosterneuburg missing
CGG107761 Valkenburg Marktveld Netherlands WesternEurope Netherlands_IronAge K1a3a1 R1b R1b1a1b1a1a2e1 NA 0_2_1_2_2_1_1_1_3_1_1 0_2_1_2_WEuMl
CGG107763 Valkenburg Marktveld Netherlands WesternEurope Netherlands_IronAge U5a2c1 R1b R1b1a1b1a1a2e1 NA 0_2_1_2_2_1_2_3_2_1 0_2_1_2_WEuMl
CGG019200 Illerup_weapon_sacrifice_site Denmark_Jutland NorthernEurope Denmark_IronAge_EarlyRomanBogWar T2b R1b R1b1a1b1a1a2e2~ NA 0_1_2_1_4_2_2_2_1_1_1 0_1_2_SouthScan
6DT23 Driffield Terrace, York England WesternEurope Britain_Roman H6a1b2 R1b R1b1a1b1a1a2e1 R1b-DF19 0_2_1_1_4_1_1_1_1 0_2_1_1_WEuIs
R31 Mausoleo di Augusto Italy SouthernEurope Italy_LateAntiquity K1c1 R1b R1b1a1b1a1a2e2 R1b-DF19 0_1_2_2_1_1_2_4_1_1 0_1_2_SouthScan
Hiddestorf missing
I17277 Hartlepool, Olive Street_Durham England WesternEurope England_Medieval.1240k K2a6 R1b R1b1a1b1a1a2e1 R1b-DF19 0_1_2_5_2_1_1_3_2_1 0_1_2_SouthScan
IND002 Alt-Inden_North Rhine-Westphalia Germany WesternEurope Germany_Medieval.1240k T2b R1b R1b1a1b1a1a2e2 NA 0_1_2_2_5_1_2_1 0_1_2_SouthScan
VK333 Oland Sweden_Baltic NorthernEurope Sweden_VikingAge H2a2a1 R1b R1b1a1b1a1a2e1 R1b-DF19 0_1_2_5_2_1_2_2_2_1 0_1_2_SouthScan

It would have been nice if they'd also tested Klosterneuburg and the two from Hiddestorf...  They are more relevant chronologically, and if Hartlepool and IND002 get SouthScan, I'm wondering what the missing ones would have had - all three plot more north/east.

Edit:  I redid them in approx chron order.

Hmm CGG107757 the U106-DF98+ guy at Valkenburg - he's SouthScan according to that chart... Interestingly 6drif3 is WEuMI... Hopefully we get a subgroup for the Valkenburg DF98 guy!

[Jaska]

Alanarchae:

But total genetic continuity of a bell beaker subgroup into the late Roman era is as good a proxy as there is ever going to be. It’s a known interface area through prehistory.

Yes, if we had 100.00 % genetic continuity, then language shift would be practically impossible during that continuity. But if the continuity is not total, then we cannot exclude a possibility of a language shift. 


Alanarchae:

Bell beaker is undoubtedly highly convincingly correlated with the Celts-Italic branch so it stands to reason that that was a major component.

When the Bell Beaker ancestry ceased to be connected to Italo-Celtic? We know that Celtic language area has greatly diminished. I mean, if you did not know the linguistic development, would you still claim that the Bell Beaker ancestry today proves about Italo-Celtic language?

[Rodoorn]

When the Bell Beaker ancestry ceased to be connected to Italo-Celtic? We know that Celtic language area has greatly diminished. I mean, if you did not know the linguistic development, would you still claim that the Bell Beaker ancestry today proves about Italo-Celtic language?

So from memory. In Kuhn et al (1962) Völker zwischen Kelten und Germanen (their Nordwestblock hypothesis) there are several passages in which there are references to Italic. Kuzmenko (2011) idem (and even more than in Kuhn).

Alanarchae: "I do think the model of a bell beaker originated dialect; perhaps with moderate areal influences from west, north-east and south; would fit well. Bell beaker is undoubtedly highly convincingly correlated with the Celts-Italic branch so it stands to reason that that was a major component."

It's very likely that the BB derived ancestry in the paper known as East North Sea cluster had a language that was in essence based- and evolved out of- the BB language.

[Rodoorn]

G25, the Dutch from North to South along French IA (supposed ENS like) and Danish IA (incoming 400 AD>).

[Rodoorn]

Davidski sees a BB Lech_Wehr sample as a kind of proxy for NE Dutch BB, this has even more than French IA the potential of being "prototype East North Sea" cluster.

Again the Dutch from North to South:

[rothaer]

I didn't look at this closely, but it sounds like they are pushing the I1 + R1a battle ax as the root of proto-Germanic rather than the SW group who was probably either just R1b or R1b + I2-M223 from Single Grave.

EDIT: They also suggest the HG ancestry was non-local suggesting Baltic rather than southern Scandinavia. I wonder if that applies to the origin of I1.

For years I have defended the idea that proto-Germanic developed in the Eastern Baltic (4 words to summarize hundreds of pages of debate) from an initial core coming from groups of Baltic CWs ( and not in southern Scandinavia from a Beakers core). For years I have consequently fought the absurd theories of Udolph and Euler who place the cradle of proto-Germanic in Germany. For years I have also defended the idea that the Jastorf culture corresponds to a zone of contact between the last fringes of continental Celtic cultures and the emerging West Germanic cultures. For this, I have been ridiculed here and elsewhere and insulted many times in other places. I hope that the last defenders of the old nonsense will take the time to carefully read this difficult text, which gives them the final blow.

„Discussion
 
The Germanic Indo-European language group is frequently assumed to have been introduced
by the first major Steppe cultures to arrive in Scandinavia. The Corded Ware culture,
appearing around 4800 BP, is generally seen as a likely context 3–6, the local Jutlandic Single
Grave culture often taking a central role 16,68,69. A comparable model sees the appearance of
the Bell Beaker culture to Jutland and Norway around 4400 BP as the moment when this
language group was introduced 7 . In contrast with these older hypotheses, an East
Scandinavian population, which is not detected for another 400-800 years, is revealed here as
an alternative vector for the introduction of Germanic, allowing for the proposition of a
revised model. Although all Early Bronze Age populations of Scandinavia derive their Steppe
ancestry from people of Corded Ware culture, the earliest Scandinavian individuals carry
small proportions of local Western Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, whereas the later Eastern
Scandinavians are modelled with Lithuanian/Latvian Hunter-Gatherer ancestry (Extended
Data Figure 3, Figure S6.5.1.4, Supplementary Note S6.5.1), indicative of a Late Neolithic
cross-Baltic migration into Scandinavia. No such migration has to our knowledge been
identified in the archaeological record. However, the timing coincides with the introduction
of a new, Late Neolithic sheep breed to Scandinavia 70“
 
1.
Obviously, the authors lack some archaeological knowledge.
 
Here is stated that based on the pottery the Battle Axe Culture (BAC) did not enter Scandinavia from the south but via Estonia and Southern Finland:
 
https://www.academia.edu/31115865/Holmqv...e_91_77_91
 
Also the dating suggests so with the oldest occurances with CWC at abt. 2800 BCE in Southern Finland and Estonia. It was in Sweden abt. a centuriy or two later. Tellingly, the Danish islands had not yet CWC (it later had in the form of the Single Grave Culture).
 
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record....dswid=2786
 
For not getting anything wrong I contacted the Swedish archaeologist Åsa M. Larsson (co-author) and she told me in 2021 (translated):
 
„Extremely briefly: More excavations and better C14 show that early BAC in Sweden appears first in central Sweden (Sörmland-Närke) and southwards down to eastern Skåne. It takes at least one generation before it appears in western Skåne and western Sweden. Swedish BAC pottery and battle axes resemble the Finnish-Estonian forms more than the Danish-German ones. For a long time, the single grave culture in Denmark was limited to Jutland; it took a long time before it was established on the Danish islands. Gradually, of course, there are influences from both East and West, but the earliest BAC settlers in Sweden most likely came from the area around the Gulf of Finland.“
 
Just as a sidenote: These finds are also presented not as a theory but as knowledge by the Swedish archaeologist Jonathan Lindström in this Swedish TV production from minute 7 onwards:
 
https://www.svtplay.se/video/21181999/de...425wLGGmKY
 
2.
Obviously, the authors are also not much into liguistics.
 
Germanic has been split off from a (pre Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian-Germanic) dialect continuum, likely represented by the CWC area, by an early and strong language contact with Italic-Celtic languages. This is what gave rise to Germanic forming a separate language family.
 
This is common sense and amongst many others displayed here by John Koch, that gives an overwiew on the stances of linguists:
 
https://www.academia.edu/38336128/Format...Revolution
 
We know where CWC had strong contacs with Bell Beaker Culture (BBC). Central Germany is even regarded a huge BBC intrusion into former CWC area. Let it have been a little bit somewhere else because we simply don’t know for sure where this coining Germanic contact happened. But it must have been somewhere in proximity to Italic-Celtic languages and regarding that the Scandinavian peninsula is totally fringe.
 
And a BAC not coming from the South but from Estonia via Southern Finland even excludes that IE dialect to have had any proximity to Italic-Celtic. In contrast, it will have been a kind of beyond-Baltic CWC-related dialect and thus one of the most remote ones from where Italic-Celtic speakers are assumend to have resided.  
 
The genetic confirmation regarding that immigration direction of BAC into Scandinavia (Scandinavian peninsula) is rather the ultimate nail into the coffin of the thought that the Germanic language hails from the Scandinavian peninsula.
 
3.
In this context it has to be mentioned that there is a very suitable and old marker for migrations from Scandinavia (Scandinavian peninsula), the Y DNA haplogroup R1a-Z284.
 
R1a-Z284 is practically absent in NW Germany and the Netherlands, whereas it has a considerable distribution in Scandinavia. R1b-U106, on the other hand, is widespread in both areas.
 


The facts:
 
- R1b-U106 (TMRCA 4600 YBP): haplogroup R1b is represented with a frequency of 31.3% in Norwegians (Dupuy et al. 2006), 23.6% in Swedes (Karlsson et al. 2006) and 36.1% in Danes (Sanchez et al. 2004). The majority of R1b lineages in Scandinavians belong to the R1b-U106 sublineage, the second most common sublineage is R1b-P312. In Europe, R1b-U106 reaches its frequency peak in the Frisians in the Netherlands.
 
- R1a-Z284 (TMRCA 4200 YBP): The R1a haplogroup is represented with a frequency of 26.3 % in Norwegians (Dupuy et al. 2006), 24.4 % in Swedes (Lappalainen et al. 2008) and 16.5 % in Danes (Sanchez et al. 2004). The majority of R1a in Scandinavia belongs to the Z284 branch, which is derived from the BAC. In Europe, R1a-Z284 peaks in the northern, north-eastern and north-western parts of Norway and Sweden.
 
That this could be due to the fact that R1a-Z284 experienced a genetic bottleneck in Scandinavia and only later expanded enormously there can be ruled out.
 
According to YFull, R1a-Z284 itself has a TMRCA of 4200 years and the main sub-branches, which are widely and abundantly represented, have the following TMRCAs:
 
R-YP1370, TMRCA 2700 years
R-YP555, TMRCA 3300 years
R-Z287, TMRCA 4100 years
R-YP405, TMRCA 2700 years
R-CTS8401, TMRCA 4100 years
R-S4458, TMRCA 3600 years
 
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z284/

The sub-sub-branches continue with high TMRCAs.

That all the sub-branches developed bottle necks and then all "exploded" independently of each other is as likely as cracking the jackpot.

This means that R1a-Z284 proves that the NW German-Scandinavian genetic similarity is due to an almost exclusive migration from south to north and not the other way around.

[miquirumba]

GBVPK Bell Beaker, Narbonne, South-France, 3890 C14 BP
from Seguin-Orlando's Heterogeneous Hunter-Gatherer and Steppe-Related Ancestries in Late Neolithic and Bell Beaker Genomes from Present-Day France formely known as the oldest DF27 relabelled R-L21.
S2 clustered ancient samples row 1613
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/...nload=true

I went back to the original study and looked at the Supplementary Tables, and it looks like the original determination of  R1b1a1b1a1a2a1, or DF27>Z195 was done using Yleaf.  Yleaf can give false reads, so I would would be interested in seeing what software was used in determining the sample is L21 instead of DF27.

that would be big if true

There are two South French Bronze Age samples (+/- 1500 BC), on the way which are, respectively, supposed to be R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a5b1a1c and R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a5c3b1a1.


* Y-chromosome haplogroups were called using Yleaf software as well as PathPhynder

what are those very long clade names in layman’s terms?

They are R-Z16289, an absurd because FTDNA shows this marker as recent as 600 BCE https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z16289/path

[Orentil]

„Discussion
 
The Germanic Indo-European language group is frequently assumed to have been introduced
by the first major Steppe cultures to arrive in Scandinavia. The Corded Ware culture,
appearing around 4800 BP, is generally seen as a likely context 3–6, the local Jutlandic Single
Grave culture often taking a central role 16,68,69. A comparable model sees the appearance of
the Bell Beaker culture to Jutland and Norway around 4400 BP as the moment when this
language group was introduced 7 . In contrast with these older hypotheses, an East
Scandinavian population, which is not detected for another 400-800 years, is revealed here as
an alternative vector for the introduction of Germanic, allowing for the proposition of a
revised model. Although all Early Bronze Age populations of Scandinavia derive their Steppe
ancestry from people of Corded Ware culture, the earliest Scandinavian individuals carry
small proportions of local Western Hunter-Gatherer ancestry, whereas the later Eastern
Scandinavians are modelled with Lithuanian/Latvian Hunter-Gatherer ancestry (Extended
Data Figure 3, Figure S6.5.1.4, Supplementary Note S6.5.1), indicative of a Late Neolithic
cross-Baltic migration into Scandinavia. No such migration has to our knowledge been
identified in the archaeological record. However, the timing coincides with the introduction
of a new, Late Neolithic sheep breed to Scandinavia 70“
 
1.
Obviously, the authors lack some archaeological knowledge.
 
Here is stated that based on the pottery the Battle Axe Culture (BAC) did not enter Scandinavia from the south but via Estonia and Southern Finland:
 
https://www.academia.edu/31115865/Holmqv...e_91_77_91
 
Also the dating suggests so with the oldest occurances with CWC at abt. 2800 BCE in Southern Finland and Estonia. It was in Sweden abt. a centuriy or two later. Tellingly, the Danish islands had not yet CWC (it later had in the form of the Single Grave Culture).
 
http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record....dswid=2786
 
For not getting anything wrong I contacted the Swedish archaeologist Åsa M. Larsson (co-author) and she told me in 2021 (translated):
 
„Extremely briefly: More excavations and better C14 show that early BAC in Sweden appears first in central Sweden (Sörmland-Närke) and southwards down to eastern Skåne. It takes at least one generation before it appears in western Skåne and western Sweden. Swedish BAC pottery and battle axes resemble the Finnish-Estonian forms more than the Danish-German ones. For a long time, the single grave culture in Denmark was limited to Jutland; it took a long time before it was established on the Danish islands. Gradually, of course, there are influences from both East and West, but the earliest BAC settlers in Sweden most likely came from the area around the Gulf of Finland.“
 
Just as a sidenote: These finds are also presented not as a theory but as knowledge by the Swedish archaeologist Jonathan Lindström in this Swedish TV production from minute 7 onwards:
 
https://www.svtplay.se/video/21181999/de...425wLGGmKY

Not sure if you got their statement right. They speak about a fist wave of BAC from the east at 2800 BC, a wave of BB from the south around 2400 BC but in addition of a third wave again out of the Baltics at 2000 - 1600 BC (without archaeological evidence) and that this third wave brought the Germanic language group (and eastern scandinavian ancestry, I1). Or do I get their or your statement wrong?

PS: I really dislike the usage of BP dates, I always have to translate it for me in BC/AD

[Jaska]

Rothaer:

Obviously, the authors lack some archaeological knowledge.
Here is stated that based on the pottery the Battle Axe Culture (BAC) did not enter Scandinavia from the south but via Estonia and Southern Finland:

First, thanks for your thorough post.
But their migration is not that one but later.

Rothaer:

Obviously, the authors are also not much into liguistics.
Germanic has been split off from a (pre Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian-Germanic) dialect continuum, likely represented by the CWC area, by an early and strong language contact with Italic-Celtic languages. This is what gave rise to Germanic forming a separate language family.

John Koch writes here in page 79:
“After ~1800–1500 BC the proposed time frame for the separation of Pre-Celtic from Proto-Italic predates the formation of most of the words comprising the 173-word Celto-Germanic subset.”
“~1800–1200/900 BCE Pre-Celtic and Pre-Germanic remained in close contact, due to at least in part to the long-distance trade of metals to Scandinavia.”
https://www.academia.edu/84137635/Celto_...h_and_West

Koch locates the Celtic influence into Germanic primarily in the region of Scandinavian Bronze Culture. Only much weaker contacts are required before that.

Rothaer:

We know where CWC had strong contacs with Bell Beaker Culture (BBC). Central Germany is even regarded a huge BBC intrusion into former CWC area. Let it have been a little bit somewhere else because we simply don’t know for sure where this coining Germanic contact happened. But it must have been somewhere in proximity to Italic-Celtic languages and regarding that the Scandinavian peninsula is totally fringe.

There are maps showing Bell Beaker pottery even next to Lithuania:
https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/bell_be...enon.shtml

Now, if the direction of influence was from Celtic to Germanic, then this all is still compatible with the view that Germanic arrived in Scandinavia from the east.

Rothaer:

The genetic confirmation regarding that immigration direction of BAC into Scandinavia (Scandinavian peninsula) is rather the ultimate nail into the coffin of the thought that the Germanic language hails from the Scandinavian peninsula.

What do you mean by this?

[Dewsloth]

„Discussion
 

Not sure if you got their statement right. They speak about a fist wave of BAC from the east at 2800 BC, a wave of BB from the south around 2400 BC but in addition of a third wave again out of the Baltics at 2000 - 1600 BC (without archaeological evidence) and that this third wave brought the Germanic language group (and eastern scandinavian ancestry, I1). Or do I get their or your statement wrong?

PS: I really dislike the usage of BP dates, I always have to translate it for me in BC/AD

As time progresses, the "P" in BP becomes more incongruous, as it was set to January 1, 1950.
At least we're in the future

[Orentil]

Thanks for reminding! I admit I forgot that and mixed it with b2k (before 2000)...

[Rodoorn]

@Jaska


Koch (2020):

By ~1500 BC Southern Scandinavia had become a brilliant
participant in the Bronze Age. Leading up to this, we must suppose
that young men who were native speakers of Pre-Germanic (most
of whom probably lacked comfortable inheritance) sought their
fortunes by undertaking long travels beyond the lands of their
native dialect. These journeys included two types: (a) expeditions to
acquire metals in Central Europe or the Atlantic West and (b) service
as ‘mercenaries’ in warbands recruited by foreign potentates.
Later, many of these adventurers returned home with enhanced
wealth and status and special knowledge that included words for
new-fangled equipment, institutions, and concepts for which there
had previously been no words in Pre-Germanic. The question that
these activities raise for historical linguistics is to what extent this
transfer of knowledge had obliged Bronze Age adventurers from
Scandinavia to learn a second language. Or had the interaction taken
place through still mutually intelligible Indo-European dialects? If the
latter, at what time did this situation give way to that of separate
languages as found in historical times?


Ling (2019):

This may indicate that the North German groups primarily used the Elbe route, while the Scandinavian groups used Weser or Rhine. In this context it is intriguing that the mentioned two rivers were used by the Scandinavian Vikings; not the rivers of Elbe or Oder (Sawyer, 1983).

So far, we have pictured some potential routes, Weser, Rhine, Elbe, Oder, Vistula and the Atlantic seaway that could have been used to transfer copper from the Italian Alps, Slovakia, Austria and Iberia to Scandinavia (Fig. 20). Which riverine route was the most convenient to use, and which river has the most archaeological evidence for interaction and trade? For instance, the Rhine area holds more finds of swords and Baltic amber than the Weser area (Schauer, 1971; Laux, 2009; Woltermann, 2012, Woltermann, 2016; Kristiansen and Suchowska-Ducke, 2015). However, it must be stressed that the mouth of the Rhine is farther away than Weser for the Scandinavians; about 200 km south-west along the coast of the North Sea. If the Scandinavians travelled this far in the Bronze Age, it would take an additional 2–3 days with a Bronze Age boat to cover this distance (Ling, 2014). Hence, it is perhaps more logical to assume that copper from the Italian Alps was transferred by Tumulus middle men, at the southern branch of Weser, and from there they could have used the copper to trade Baltic amber with the riverine travelling Scandinavians. Another potential scenario was that Tumulus groups transported the copper to the river mouth of either Weser or Rhine for further exchange with other groups from Northern Europe.


and that leads us not to a BB outlier near Lithuania, it leads us to the Ems-Weser Group and/or the Lower Rhine Tumulus Culture, in the core of the NW Block. Interface area!

Butler et al (2012):

[poilus]

I went back to the original study and looked at the Supplementary Tables, and it looks like the original determination of  R1b1a1b1a1a2a1, or DF27>Z195 was done using Yleaf.  Yleaf can give false reads, so I would would be interested in seeing what software was used in determining the sample is L21 instead of DF27.

that would be big if true

There are two South French Bronze Age samples (+/- 1500 BC), on the way which are, respectively, supposed to be R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a5b1a1c and R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a5c3b1a1.
* Y-chromosome haplogroups were called using Yleaf software as well as PathPhynder

what are those very long clade names in layman’s terms?

They are R-Z16289, an absurd because FTDNA shows this marker as recent as 600 BCE https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Z16289/path

Thank you very much! 

RM207>M173>M343>L754>L761>L389>P297>M269>L23>L51>P310>L151>P312>Z290>L21>S552>DF13>DF21>S5488>Z16294>Z16281>FT14306>Z16282>Z16291>Z16284>FT14437>FT222>Y83713>Z16289
D
/

Wait and see.

[Cejo]

@Jaska

Koch (2020):

By ~1500 BC Southern Scandinavia had become a brilliant
participant in the Bronze Age. Leading up to this, we must suppose
that young men who were native speakers of Pre-Germanic (most
of whom probably lacked comfortable inheritance) sought their
fortunes by undertaking long travels beyond the lands of their
native dialect. These journeys included two types: (a) expeditions to
acquire metals in Central Europe or the Atlantic West and (b) service
as ‘mercenaries’ in warbands recruited by foreign potentates.

Linge (2019):

Hence, it is perhaps more logical to assume that copper from the Italian Alps was transferred by Tumulus middle men, at the southern branch of Weser, and from there they could have used the copper to trade Baltic amber with the riverine travelling Scandinavians. Another potential scenario was that Tumulus groups transported the copper to the river mouth of either Weser or Rhine for further exchange with other groups from Northern Europe.

As Koch suggests, they were already speaking pre-germanic, so this represents how pre-germanic speakers learned "celtic" words and ideas, right?

As a tangential remark, I think there's also an interesting distinction between these narratives: Koch 2020 is a narrative wherein Southern Scandinavian adventurers make long-distance expeditions to secure their fortunes, while the Linge 2019 is more of a network involving middle-men and generally shorter travel. Ultimately probably inconsequential to this conversation, but I think it raises interesting questions about interactions at the time.