About Proto-Germanic

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn wrote: " The data points can be observed easily. I1 moved into into Scandinavia from the continent, as there is an I1 individual from German TRB. This is consistent with genome-wide models which show a 'southwestern' shift from early Swedish battle Axe to the Flint Dagger horizon. "
Please elaborate, for example by posting these genome-wide models or a link to them. There's nothing of this sort in Allentoft 2022 (in the case you were alluding to this) because precisely the data that leads Allentoft to discern three phases is not genome-wide but "patterns of pairwise IBD-sharing and Y-chromosome haplogroup distributions". Nobody should forget the beginning of the sentence: "Although the overall population genomic signatures suggest genetic stability ...". As for the "patterns of pairwise IBD-sharing", I've already expressed my doubts (that are far from being only mine), noticing that these patterns show me as overwhelmingly Finnish (despite the fact that I've in my genealogy nothing more than a g-g-g-mother Finnish).

I really don't what you are aiming at, I pointed at Ostorf, I'm well wel aware that it's on the continent.  Thanks for the clarification about the southwestern shift. No need for genome-wide models, not my cup of tea anyway.

PS it's not my quote by the way (Rodoorn wrote?!!??), are we getting in a spinning machine or what?

[Anglesqueville]

Rodoorn wrote: " The data points can be observed easily. I1 moved into into Scandinavia from the continent, as there is an I1 individual from German TRB. This is consistent with genome-wide models which show a 'southwestern' shift from early Swedish battle Axe to the Flint Dagger horizon. "
Please elaborate, for example by posting these genome-wide models or a link to them. There's nothing of this sort in Allentoft 2022 (in the case you were alluding to this) because precisely the data that leads Allentoft to discern three phases is not genome-wide but "patterns of pairwise IBD-sharing and Y-chromosome haplogroup distributions". Nobody should forget the beginning of the sentence: "Although the overall population genomic signatures suggest genetic stability ...". As for the "patterns of pairwise IBD-sharing", I've already expressed my doubts (that are far from being only mine), noticing that these patterns show me as overwhelmingly Finnish (despite the fact that I've in my genealogy nothing more than a g-g-g-mother Finnish).

I really don't what you are aiming at, I pointed at Ostorf, I'm well wel aware that it's on the continent.  Thanks for the clarification about the southwestern shift. No need for genome-wide models, not my cup of tea anyway.

PS it's not my quote by the way (Rodoorn wrote?!!??), are we getting in a spinning machine or what?

Oops, yes you're right on this point, I should have written "Rodoorn wrote quoting popgenetist82". As for your previous post (#46), I repeat that I do not see how it is beyond the obligations of the super moderator to welcome a member, for the reasons indicated, especially when at that moment no one else than I had intervened on this thread ( this thread opened by me), especially when at that time you were not even registered on this forum. I find this truly incredible. But you are a truly incredible individual. This promises us lots of fun.

[Anglesqueville]

Copy (slightly enlarged) of a post previously published on the old forum.

Often when we use a dictionary we do not read enough, if at all, the introductory information. In the case of the Läglös, it would be a shame. We must obviously place this monumental work in its time (1991). What in particular is said about the chronology of Germanic-Balto-Finnic contacts would be severely contested today, due to its depth. But as for their geographical location and the nature of the relationships, I don't find much to complain about. The only complaint I could find concerns the last sentence, which considers obvious the absence of lexical transfer in the Finnic > Germanic sense. That, if there was a transfer, it was very reduced, this is indisputable. But Hyllestedt, in his thesis, asks us to nuance. Saarikivi and Holopainen, in the presentation that I published above, announce new etymologies that could be added to those proposed by Hyllestedt. I hope to read them one day, and I'm not the only one. It should be noted that until recently, the rare Germanists who have really asked themselves the question of non-Indo-European etymologies in Germanic languages have never explored the Balto-Finnic domain (due likely to a lack of knowledge in this area). I now copy the page that Läglös devotes to the location and nature of the contacts.

Die Übernahme des germanischen Wortguts ins Ostseefinnische wird in einem Gebiet stattgefunden haben, wo Sprecher beider Sprachen miteinander in langer, intensiver Berührung waren. Es liegt nahe, an ein Gebiet an der Ostsee zu denken. Skandinavien und die südwestlichen Küsten der Ostsee waren germanisches Siedlungsgebiet; die Ostseefinnen werden im heutigen Estland, auf der finnischen Südküste und in Gebieten östlich davon wohnhaft gewesen sein.

Die Archäologie meint auf bronzezeitliche Kontakte zwischen Zentral- und Südschweden einerseits und dem estnisch-finnischen Raum andererseits schließen zu können. Nicht gesichert ist, wer die Initiative ergriff. Die Übernahme vieler Begriffe aus dem Transportwesen ins Ostseefinnische läßt vermuten, daß es Germanen waren, die den Kontakt zustande gebracht haben. Die Übernahme der ältesten Lehnwörter wird daher wohl auf ostseefinnischem Gebiet stattgefunden haben. Dies schließt jedoch nicht aus, daß anschließend Ostseefinnen freiwillig oder gezwungen sich in germanischen Gebieten aufgehalten, dort neue Gegenstände, Gebräuche usw. kennengelemt und deren Bezeichnungen übernommen haben.

Die Kontakte müssen auf jeden Fall während längerer Zeit sehr intensiv gewesen sein; sonst ließe sich die Übernahme von in nahezu allen ostseefinnischen Sprachen vorkommenden Wörtern wie ja ’und’, jo 'bereits’ und sama 'derselbe' kaum verstehen. Noch weniger verständlich wäre die Annäherung der finnischen Lautstruktur an die germanische (vgl. Posti 1953/54).

Es liegt nahe, Zweisprachigkeit relativ breiter Kreise auf ostseefinnischer Seite und bei solchen Germanen, die die Kontakte mit Ostseefinnen aufrechterhielten, als wesentlichen Faktor bei der Aufnahme germanischen Wortguts ins Ostseefinnische zu sehen. Das Prestige, das der Sprache der Germanen anhaftete, wird sowohl im Kreise der Zweisprachigen wie im Kreise der nur Ostseefinnischsprachigen der Übernahme germanischer Wörter, auch für längst bekannte Begriffe und Erscheinungen, zuträglich gewesen sein. Es ist allerdings auffällig, daß der anzunehmende lange Kontakt den germanischen Wortschatz anscheinend nicht beeinflußt hat.

Translation (Google)

The adoption of the Germanic vocabulary into Baltic Finnish will have taken place in an area where speakers of both languages were in long, intensive contact with one another. It makes sense to think of an area on the Baltic Sea. Scandinavia and the southwestern coast of the Baltic Sea were Germanic settlement areas; The Baltic Sea Finns will have lived in what is now Estonia, on the southern coast of Finland and in areas east of it.

Archeology believes that it can conclude that there were Bronze Age contacts between central and southern Sweden on the one hand and the Estonian-Finnish area on the other. It is not certain who took the initiative. The adoption of many terms from transport into Baltic Finnish suggests that it was Germanic peoples who brought about the contact. The adoption of the oldest loan words probably took place on Baltic Finnish territory. However, this does not rule out the possibility that Baltic Sea Finns subsequently stayed in Germanic areas voluntarily or by force, learned about new objects, customs, etc. and adopted their names.

In any case, the contacts must have been very intensive over a long period of time; Otherwise, the adoption of words such as ja 'and', jo 'already' and sama 'the same', which occur in almost all Baltic Finnish languages, would be difficult to understand. The approximation of the Finnish sound structure to the Germanic one would be even less understandable (cf. Posti 1953/54).

It makes sense to see bilingualism among relatively broad circles on the Baltic Finnish side and among those Germanic peoples who maintained contact with Baltic Finns as an important factor in the absorption of Germanic vocabulary into Baltic Finnish. The prestige attached to the language of the Germanic peoples will have been conducive to the adoption of Germanic words, including long-known terms and phenomena, both among bilinguals and among those who only spoke Baltic Sea Finnish. However, it is striking that the assumed long contact does not appear to have influenced the Germanic vocabulary.

The text by Lauri Posti to which the authors refer is "From Pre-Finnic to Late Proto-Finnic, Studies on the Development of the Consonant System". This text is old (1952) and I do not know what, in detail, its status is in the eyes of today's linguists. I don't know if I can ask Jaska's opinion on this point without arousing disapproval from one of the readers. In any case, it seems to me that his methodology is still entirely up to date. In his conclusion, he notes:

Foreign influence, then, is to be considered the ultimate cause of the most important changes. The first foreign influence on Proto-Finnic came from Proto-Baltic, or at least from a form of Baltic which in all essential features seems to have represented the Proto-Baltic stage. The subsequent source of influence was Germanic; here too we can assume that the language was essentially Proto-Germanic. From both these sources a great number of loan-words were adopted. It has been assumed already on the evidence of the loanwords that the contacts must have been both of long duration and close. There may have been areas with a mixed population and with a considerable number of bilingual speakers. Under such circumstances it seems quite natural that not only the vocabulary but also the sound system of Proto-Finnic was affected by the foreign influence.
When bilingual speakers of Baltic or Germanic origin spoke Finnic, they pronounced it according to their own speech habits. If there were consonants or consonant-groups in Finnic which did not occur in their own sound-system, they substituted the closest equivalents of their own language.
These pronunciation habits were adopted by the neighboring Finnic population — often perhaps because of the higher social prestige of the foreigners. Gradually the new pronunciation, with such minor modifications as the Finnic soundsystem may have made necessary, spread over the whole Proto-Finnic area. Thus we can say that the majority of the Proto-Finnic consonant changes are due to a Baltic or Germanic superstratum. It should be noted, however, that the changes caused by Germanic influence are by far more numerous than the changes due to the Baltic contacts.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn wrote: " The data points can be observed easily. I1 moved into into Scandinavia from the continent, as there is an I1 individual from German TRB. This is consistent with genome-wide models which show a 'southwestern' shift from early Swedish battle Axe to the Flint Dagger horizon. "
Please elaborate, for example by posting these genome-wide models or a link to them. There's nothing of this sort in Allentoft 2022 (in the case you were alluding to this) because precisely the data that leads Allentoft to discern three phases is not genome-wide but "patterns of pairwise IBD-sharing and Y-chromosome haplogroup distributions". Nobody should forget the beginning of the sentence: "Although the overall population genomic signatures suggest genetic stability ...". As for the "patterns of pairwise IBD-sharing", I've already expressed my doubts (that are far from being only mine), noticing that these patterns show me as overwhelmingly Finnish (despite the fact that I've in my genealogy nothing more than a g-g-g-mother Finnish).

I really don't what you are aiming at, I pointed at Ostorf, I'm well wel aware that it's on the continent.  Thanks for the clarification about the southwestern shift. No need for genome-wide models, not my cup of tea anyway.

PS it's not my quote by the way (Rodoorn wrote?!!??), are we getting in a spinning machine or what?

Oops, yes you're right on this point, I should have written "Rodoorn wrote quoting popgenetist82". As for your previous post (#46), I repeat that I do not see how it is beyond the obligations of the super moderator to welcome a member, for the reasons indicated, especially when at that moment no one else than I had intervened on this thread ( this thread opened by me), especially when at that time you were not even registered on this forum. I find this truly incredible. But you are a truly incredible individual. This promises us lots of fun.

With soit I thought we could leave it behind. It's not only the welcome. I see a very servile kind of behavior. Last posting: "I don't know if I can ask Jaska's opinion", you use that to no one else,  and on nr 1.:  "I don't really see how the welcome given by an amateur like me could change the life of a professional like Jaska.As for my point of view, it is entirely based on the awareness I have of being precisely an amateur, for which the presence of an authentic professional is, not felt, but objectively judged as a privilege. I add, including when the opinions of this professional undermine theories in which the amateur places, or had placed, a lot of hope. It's simply called intellectual rigour." pfffffffffff...... and other phrases....and otherwise it's towards popgenetist82: comic etc. I see it more often in hierarchal kind of types. May be it's due to the difference in culture. The power distances in France (l'etat c'est moi)  for example are much more present than in Denmark or my country, especially my region is well known for it's egalitarian attitude (wat wollst du snakker?   May be that is my allergy lick (full of egard) to the supposedly higher placed (in hierarchy or in knowledge) and kick to those deemed inferior... Perhaps my over-sensitivity, but I observe it in you and I am not the only one.... enough has been said about it. Schluss.

[Jaska]

Anglesqueville:

"The text by Lauri Posti to which the authors refer is "From Pre-Finnic to Late Proto-Finnic, Studies on the Development of the Consonant System". This text is old (1952) and I do not know what, in detail, its status is in the eyes of today's linguists. I don't know if I can ask Jaska's opinion on this point without arousing disapproval from one of the readers. In any case, it seems to me that his methodology is still entirely up to date."

Petri Kallio has assessed Posti's theory in his article "Posti's superstrate theory at the threshold of a new millennium" (2000), not available online. He writes that it is impossible to prove that certain sound changes were caused by external factors, and many of Posti's propositions are late even in Germanic. Moreover, it is suspicious why the Germanic speakers would not have any difficulties with Finnic vowels but only with consonants. As a whole, however, it is still probable that there was Germanic (and Baltic) superstrate in Finnic, even though sound changes cannot be seen evidence of that. Instead, it was like the case of Old French in England: it let a lot of loanwords in the local language, yet caused no sound changes, and eventually the newcomers were linguistically assimilated into the local population.

[Rodoorn]

There's nothing new here, we know the historic migrations of Germanic groups, although the quesiton of LBA exodus from Scandinavia needs to be further assessed. Unlike Poland & the Scandinavian regions, Germany remains under-sampled for the post-BB period.

@PopGenist82, that's the weak part of a supposed Germanic from Scandinavia (in casu Angles the Malaren)  to the continent, there is no single evidence of a LBA exodus 0.0. Fake and false history.

In the old Urheimat theory related to Scandinavia was based on the idea that IE came from Scandinavia  to the continent. Who is convinced of this today? Even more with the genetic findings of the last decennium?

And it's very clear that the Bronze Age was in Central Europe hundreds of years earlier than in Scandinavia. And has VandKilde shows it was brought towards Southern Scandinavia by Unetice IE groups (as blend of Single Grave and related BB). The hoards of SW Scania were copycat the rich graves of the Unetice Kings. The villages- the buildings- were copycat Unetice. It's reasonable that the language- mark in these phase so in EBA!!!- was also copycat Unetice. 

VandKilde:
"This may underpin the idea posited above, concerning the involvement of personal relations: a group of cosmopolitans emulated each other while agreeing on a ceremonial format, with axes being by far the most abundant element of each deposition, followed by rings and spiced with rarer items."

Imo this is not only related to an "agree on a ceremonial format", the means of communication c.q. language must have been part of it!

In fact it's quite clear that the IE influx came from Central(East) Europe. Egfjørd (2021) places the roots of the Single Grave Culture clearly to Middle Elbe Saale (he mentions the Halle area). The SGC culture and people were- also with regard to pre Germanic- decisive.

In my posting (on page 1) I forgot one picture- with thanks to Orentil- the Middle Elbe Saale area is also the core here....:





Although because of lack of evidence you can't make a decisive pinpointing of a Germanic Urheimat,  all indices show that the Ur-or pre Germanic as a kind of lingua franca of the Unetice of Middle Elbe Saale/ Harz is the most likely area of the Ur-Germanic!

[Rodoorn]

Now Part II. In which I show how the configuration and "the center of gravity" in MBA changed from Unetice Elbe/Harz towards NBA!

Not by pointing at the direct relationship between Unetice and NBA area, but by looking at almost a kind of "sidekick region" in the outmost NW corner of the continent namely in Drenthe.



Here we see (red star) Drouwen, Drenthe, may be the maximum extention of Unetice in E/MBA. Here we find a kind of anomaly a rich grave still visible in the landscape there, a grave of a man that belonged- seen by his grave goods- to the very highest rankings of the Unetice elite. He had golden earrings, so second in rank just after the king and prince:



What was this man doing in Drouwen, Drenthe? That remains a guess. A possible explanation may be that the Hunze River originates here and that river led to the Wadden Sea, between Ameland and Schiermonnikoog, where amber could still be found then and now. And amber was highly desirable in Unetice culture! So Drouwen was probably a transshipment point that had to be kept under control.

VandKilde 2017, red star Drouwen:


It is remarkable that Drouwen, Drenthe remained the spur of the Germanic circuit. Because after the Unetice period we see quite unique finds that indicate ties with Scandinavia (including an unique sword from that area). The eminent archaeologist JJ Butler, who investigated all this, could not have known what we know now. But those ties with both the Elbe area and Scandinavia had certainly not escaped his notice, as the shift in LBA. I draw the conclusion from this that the initiative and cultural appearance - probably including language development - also shifted in Germanic, without that the circuit as a whole disappeared! So imo the LBA radiance from NBA was more cultural than an exodus of people.

https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026

As Jaska concluded, this doesn't hinder the exchange between Germanic and Finnic/Saami and everything related to it. And neither does the strong influence on proto Germanic by the bilingual situation with the Finnic/Saami area, nothing at all.

[Anglesqueville]

About some maritime animals

1) Proto-Germanic *selhaz = "seal (animal)"
Kroonen:
[img][/img]

Orel : 

*selxaz sb.m.: ON selr ‘seal’, OE seolh id., MLG sel id., OHG selah id. A Wanderwort of unknown origin.

Some have proposed an IE etymology ultimately based on PIE *selk- (“to pull”), ( Greek ἕλκω ‘to draw, to drag’), but I seem to know that this etymology is now most often rejected.
The word has its exact reflection in pre-proto-Finnic *šülkeš > proto-Finnic *hülgeh > Fin. hylje. Some have wanted to see the Proto-Germanic word as a loanword from this source. It seems to me that today most specialists are leaning towards borrowing in the other direction. This leaves the proto-Germanic word without etymology and favours the hypothesis of a loan from an unknown non-Indo-European language. Iversen and Kroonen in their famous text "Talking Neolithic: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on How Indo-European Was Implemented in Southern Scandinavia" (2017) saw this as evidence of contact between pre-proto-Germanic speaking groups with groups belonging to the Pitted Ware culture, whose economy placed great importance on seal hunting. We know that such contacts took place. In particular the 2020 study by Coutinho et al. ("The Neolithic Pitted Ware culture foragers were culturally but not genetically influenced by the Battle Ax culture herders") proved that on the island of Gotland, the Battle Axe and Pitted Ware cultures coexisted (without detectable genetic influence, neither in one direction nor in the other). The oldest may remember that I once on AG put forward the hypothesis that this word was a minor but quite convincing element in favour of a link of filiation between the culture of the Battle Axes and the proto-Germanic, causing a mini-scandal.

2) Proto-Germanic *sīlą = "herring"
The area of distribution of the descendants of this theme is essentially limited to North Germanic and English (and by contagion to Norman dialects).
This word has no known etymology. Two elements add to the mystery. The Estonian has the word "silk" for this fish. Even more surprising, we reconstruct a proto-Saami *silä-tɜ with the original meaning of “fat fish”. The Polish linguist Krzysztof Tomasz Witczak believes he can assert that the Proto-Germanic theme is a borrowing from Proto-Saami. The origin would then to be found in the proto-Uralic theme PUr: *śilä (= fat) > Finn: silava (= pork fat). As for the Finnic "silakka" (= (originally salted) herring), it is most often seen as a late borrowing from Swedish, but Witszak doesn't agree.
The fact remains that anyway *sīlą has no sound indo-european etymology. We therefore cannot exclude an early borrowing from an unknown source. Proto-Saami and proto-Balto-Finnic (with an Estonian descendant) would in that case be independent borrowings from the same source.  I find pretty intriguing the resemblance of the PGmc *sīlą with the PGmc *selkaz. Now let me rave a little. The French word for catfish is "silure." This word comes from the Greek (via Latin) σίλουρος. This Greek word is also mysterious. The traditional etymology which sees the word οὐρά (= tail) suffixed to a derivative of the verb σείειν (= to agitate) is today most often rejected, and the specialists lean towards a compound of two pre-Greek elements. 
The “sil-” of “silouros/catfish” would therefore also come from a non-Indo-European substrate. Could it be that the "sil-" in "silouros" is the same as that of *sīlą and the *sel- of *selkaz? Something like a non-IE Wanderwort associated with the meaning "Fish"? I leave this question unanswered (and I won't react if someone points out to me that catfish sometimes weigh as much as seals, but always much, much more than herring!)

3) Proto-Germanic *hwalaz m (= whale, sheatfish)

This word has an unproblematic I.E. etymology. < *(s)kʷálos ("large fish").
It has been borrowed into proto-Finnic *valas > Fin. valas (same meaning). Läglös states:

VALAS ’Wal’, valaskala (-kala ’Fisch’) ’id.; unbestimmter großer Fisch’;
karel. (Vd.) valas(kala); estn. valaskala.
*valas
~ urgerm. *Xwala-z, urn. *hwalaR; vgl. an. hvalr m. ’Wal’, aschwed. hvaler m. id., ae. hwæl m. id., ahd. (h)wal m. id.
Die Deutung von valas als germ. Lehnwort stammt von Thomsen. Sie ist lautlich und semantisch in Ordnung

Wikipedia gives oddly "valas" as  "Borrowed from Northern Sami fális, from Proto-Samic *fālēs". But for Aikio the Saamic word is a loanword from proto-Norse.

[PopGenist82]

PopGenetist82:

“The burden of evidence falls on you to prove that there are. At present there is no evidence for this. It shows the opposite - migrations from Latvia to Sweden.”

I already showed evidence supporting movement from Scandinavia. Do I have to repeat myself? I am still waiting for your evidence which could disprove - this burden is on you. So, can you prove that the people in the Estonian Stone Cist graves have no ancestry from Scandinavia?

PopGenetist82:

“The evidence also evidence shows that these late Bronze Age peoples of the East Baltic came from eastern Poland, Belarus and such regions.”

So? This concerns SOME people there. This cannot disprove the presence of OTHER people there. How you cannot understand this?

PopGenetist82:

“The evidence also shows that F-U speaking populations are bound by Ancestry from the Kolyma basin and they began arriving west of the Urals after 1600 BC. It also shows that Samoyedic people have no western ancestry, therefore they could not have arrived from west of the Urals”

1. Please give me source for that dating 1600 BC. Siberian ancestry arrived in the Kola Peninsula (BOO) already much earlier than that.
2. There are also other ancestries widespread in the Uralic populations. There is no evidence so far that the Siberian component was involved in already Proto-Uralic dispersal. You cannot just ignore the linguistic results and decide that there is a connection - that is unscientific.
3. Samoyedic people are very diverse – only Nganasans (highly drifted population) apparently do not have visible western ancestry. Selkups and Nenets seem to have European ancestry, see Tambets et al. 2018.

PopGenetist82:

“Put together, this data strongly supports the views held by Ante Aiko, Jaha Janhunen, Napolskih, Kuzmin. etc. This is what the evidence shows, it is not my pre-determined position, or anything personal against you.”

What views do you mean, and how do those views differ from my view? As I said, you cannot disprove a view until you know what that view really is and which evidence it is based on.

I’m not going to go around in circles, if you don’t take my word for it - Angles should explain to you why Baltic LBA people aren’t from Scandinavia, but the opposite 

To summarise the evidence , & hence my position : 
- the speakers of FU came from northern Siberia . They weren’t just pre-proto-Uralic but proto-Uralic propper.

- Germanic did not develop in Malar region , but closer to Jutland, the centre of the Nordic BA

This is all consistent with linguistics of course.

[Jaska]

PopGenist82:

“I’m not going to go around in circles, if you don’t take my word for it - Angles should explain to you why Baltic LBA people aren’t from Scandinavia, but the opposite”

How cannot you understand what I wrote? Why do you still cling to your own strawman?
- I never claimed that all Baltic BA people came from Scandinavia, but only those related to the Stone Cist graves. 
- I never rejected movement from the east to Scandinavia.

PopGenist82:

“To summarise the evidence , & hence my position :
- the speakers of FU came from northern Siberia . They weren’t just pre-proto-Uralic but proto-Uralic propper.”

You must have misunderstood the word “evidence”, because there is no evidence supporting your claim. Do you really believe you can see language from DNA? That would be worth the Nobel prize, so please inform the geneticists of the world as soon as possible.

PopGenist82:

“- Germanic did not develop in Malar region , but closer to Jutland, the centre of the Nordic BA
This is all consistent with linguistics of course.”

More relevant is, to where the (Pre-)Proto-Germanic language spread. Language contacts are possible everywhere there are speakers of those languages.

[Anglesqueville]

PopGenetist82:

“The burden of evidence falls on you to prove that there are. At present there is no evidence for this. It shows the opposite - migrations from Latvia to Sweden.”

I already showed evidence supporting movement from Scandinavia. Do I have to repeat myself? I am still waiting for your evidence which could disprove - this burden is on you. So, can you prove that the people in the Estonian Stone Cist graves have no ancestry from Scandinavia?

PopGenetist82:

“The evidence also evidence shows that these late Bronze Age peoples of the East Baltic came from eastern Poland, Belarus and such regions.”

So? This concerns SOME people there. This cannot disprove the presence of OTHER people there. How you cannot understand this?

PopGenetist82:

“The evidence also shows that F-U speaking populations are bound by Ancestry from the Kolyma basin and they began arriving west of the Urals after 1600 BC. It also shows that Samoyedic people have no western ancestry, therefore they could not have arrived from west of the Urals”

1. Please give me source for that dating 1600 BC. Siberian ancestry arrived in the Kola Peninsula (BOO) already much earlier than that.
2. There are also other ancestries widespread in the Uralic populations. There is no evidence so far that the Siberian component was involved in already Proto-Uralic dispersal. You cannot just ignore the linguistic results and decide that there is a connection - that is unscientific.
3. Samoyedic people are very diverse – only Nganasans (highly drifted population) apparently do not have visible western ancestry. Selkups and Nenets seem to have European ancestry, see Tambets et al. 2018.

PopGenetist82:

“Put together, this data strongly supports the views held by Ante Aiko, Jaha Janhunen, Napolskih, Kuzmin. etc. This is what the evidence shows, it is not my pre-determined position, or anything personal against you.”

What views do you mean, and how do those views differ from my view? As I said, you cannot disprove a view until you know what that view really is and which evidence it is based on.

I’m not going to go around in circles, if you don’t take my word for it - Angles should explain to you why Baltic LBA people aren’t from Scandinavia, but the opposite 

To summarise the evidence , & hence my position : 
- the speakers of FU came from northern Siberia . They weren’t just pre-proto-Uralic but proto-Uralic propper.

- Germanic did not develop in Malar region , but closer to Jutland, the centre of the Nordic BA

This is all consistent with linguistics of course.

I must therefore once again repeat what “I” think about the spread of the PGmc. I put “I” in quotation marks because there is no originality to claim in this case.
1) First, as an aside, as to the direction of influences in the Iron Age, one could fill a library with texts describing the Gotland-Mälar-SWFinland-Northern Estonia area in the Iron Age as an area of generalized interactions, or even, as one author has called it, a zone of cultural hybridization. The fact that it has been proven that the genetic portrait of certain occupants of certain stone cist graves was not that of Scandinavians does not support the absence of Scandinavian influences. These are abundantly documented.
2) Other aside, as for the "Volgaic" origin of the first speakers of West-Uralic languages in the eastern Baltic from the beginning of the Iron Age, there is not the slightest doubt. That these waves were preceded, even prepared, by the arrival of other groups, particularly in the wake of the ST traders, is at least possible. This is the hypothesis of Kallio, who was told that the findings associated with ST in Finland are too sparse to constitute an argument. In any case, these didn't come from Northern Siberia either.
3) The expansion of proto-Germanic from its zone of formation must be described as the diffusion of some final phonological mutations, the diffusion of an "accent" if you like, not at all the occurrence of a “brand new language” (to speak like Finn on AG) associated with a migratory phenomenon. To repeat and correct Jorma Koivulehto's formulation: "Die Jastorf-Leute <in Norddeutschland> waren zwar sicher auch Germanen, aber damalige Südgermanen, keine ältesten Urgermanen", I would say that Jastorf was a peripheral area where one (or more?) late pre-Proto-Germanic language was spoken, probably in contact with non-Germanic languages. This zone, affected late by the diffusion of PGmc, is for me more essentially the one where the formation of West Germanic began.

[Rodoorn]

3) The expansion of proto-Germanic from its zone of formation must be described as the diffusion of some final phonological mutations, the diffusion of an "accent" if you like, not at all the occurrence of a “brand new language” (to speak like Finn on AG) associated with a migratory phenomenon. To repeat and correct Jorma Koivulehto's formulation: "Die Jastorf-Leute <in Norddeutschland> waren zwar sicher auch Germanen, aber damalige Südgermanen, keine ältesten Urgermanen", I would say that Jastorf was a peripheral area where one (or more?) late pre-Proto-Germanic language was spoken, probably in contact with non-Germanic languages. This zone, affected late by the diffusion of PGmc, is for me more essentially the one where the formation of West Germanic began.

@Angles




There is a lot of terminology, even different per country. I used the scheme and therefore the periodization of Koch (2020).

Pre-Germanic (* circa 1900 BC), which, according to Euler (2009, 2021) was born in Unetice Elbe/Harz, can - to throw in another term - be seen as a para-language. In other words, the language of the Unetice koiné (VandKilde 2017). To be regarded as the beginning of the Germanic circuit in Northern Europe. 

See also my MT thesis:
The Unetice koiné (2300 BC- 1500 BC)  was a contact variety of the Pre-Germanic language that was spoken throughout North Central Europe and Southern Scandinavia.

[Rodoorn]

@Angles and with regard to Jastorf. Mark that the Southern part of Jastorf (Elbe-Saale, Harz) was core Pre-Germanic. And I agree with Ringe (2017) that Jastorf as a whole was may be too big to expect one size fits all language (so different dialects). It's likely that in the Germanic circuit in LBA/IA the language development had a center of gravity in Southern Scandinavia, Malären could be such a place and Denmark too (with regard to proto- Germanic 500 BC>). My impression is that the diffusion of this kind of (proto-) Germanic was most heavily during the early middle ages, the migration period. With the spread of the Anglo-Saxons for example.

[Anglesqueville]

Rodoorn, I am somewhat agnostic about the early stages of the pre-Germanic process (because it is indeed a process, not a language). The relative failures of the various cladistic methods suggest that the problem is difficult, and undoubtedly escapes simple modeling by internal evolution. Now it is not obvious that this problem arises in the same way on the lexical level and on the phonological and morphological level, and this is the reason why I say that I am only somewhat agnostic. I am, following several eminent Germanists of the past (in particular Lehmann whom I have already often cited), quite hostile to the idea that the pre-Germanic process could have taken place in contact, as Euler writes, to Italic branches in the south, Celtic in the west, Slavic in the east (I repeat Euler's words), without this leaving the slightest trace in the form of significant morphological innovations. Everything indicates, on the contrary, that this process took place in conditions of relative isolation. Moreover if, as Ringe suggests, the early stages of this process are marked by a certain initial proximity to Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, I find it difficult to see how these stages could have had any connection with Unetice.
edit: But that said, that is not my subject on this thread. As you know well, the heart of my argument lies in the lexical relationships with the West-Uralic branch, it therefore has no connection with anything that could have happened before the end of the Bronze Age (at the earliest) and the Iron Age (mainly).

[Jaska]

At least the West Germanic Anglo-Frisian branch and Saxon originated in Denmark, and East Germanic/Gothic shares innovations with North Germanic and is generally also derived from Scandinavia. So, is there any reason to assume any known Germanic language which could not be derived from Scandinavia?

Of course, this cannot exclude any extinct (Para-)Germanic languages in the south already earlier, or disprove the early stage of Pre-Proto-Germanic in the south, but it shows that the extant lineage of Late Proto-Germanic seems to be located quite north. (Naturally, if some of those possible earlier "aunt languages" had survived, we would define Proto-Germanic differently.)