About Proto-Germanic

[Anglesqueville]

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.

I have always thought this too, but I have avoided using this argument, for the reason that Udolph clings to the idea (absurd of course) that Scandinavia was "Germanized" very late from Germany. So what is almost obvious to us does not work for Udolph and the few who follow him.

[Rodoorn]

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).

With regard to pre-historic languages as such I'm agnostic as well, we now very little about them, the reconstructed  proto-Germanic for example is at his best a good representation. But we aren't able to verify if the representation is good or bad because we have nada real sources from the "original". So all this speculations about Italic and Balto Slavic.....

So with the glasses of a historian- like I am- I see a convincing narrative from VandKilde and Meller, in which in EBA there really was a kind of Unetice koiné. Mark that we now know much much more than decennia ago. The Nebra Sky Disc is found in 1999, the tremendous rich grave of Diekau is archeological researched in 2014, 2017 etc etc.

So the idea the pre-Germanic, when it appeared about 1900 BC at a time when Unetice was undisputable  the power house in Northern Europe, which was trending on several fronts, so why not language, is imo convincing.

The idea that because of the loans in Finnic en vice versa it had to be borderland Saami/Finnic is seen the early stage of pre-Germanic no longer legitimit.
And it's also reasonable to think that the heartland of pre-Germanic stayed in the Germanic lineage although the accent came later on from the more NE part of the Germanic world. 

But I guess you stay in the one and only Malären is Urheimat Germanic groove....so be it!

[Rodoorn]

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.)

Agree, and you can even see this on population level. I was Finn on anthrogenica and in good old times Angles made this Qadm:

"
right pops:
Villabruna
Vestonice16
Ust_Ishim_published.DG
Kostenki14.SG
GoyetQ116-1_udg_published
MA1.SG
GanjDareh
BOT14.SG
Kostenki
S_Mbuti-3.DG
A_Papuan-16.DG
A_Han-4.DG
Andaman.SG
left pops:
finndad_NL
Denmark_IA
Ansarve_Megalithic (I wanted to have a "farmer" source. The choice of Ansarve can be disputed, but anyway, according to the results the question has no real importance ...)
best coefficients: 1.025 -0.025
totmean: 1.025 -0.025
boot mean: 1.027 -0.027
std. errors: 0.100 0.100
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00 0 11 5.192 0.921515 1.025 -0.025 infeasible
01 1 12 5.260 0.948719 1.000 0.000
10 1 12 113.107 1.45072e-18 0.000 1.000
best pat: 00 0.921515 - -
best pat: 01 0.948719 chi(nested): 0.068 p-value for nested model: 0.793938
left pops:
finnmum_NL
Denmark_IA
Ansarve_Megalithic
best coefficients: 0.984 0.016
totmean: 0.984 0.016
boot mean: 0.986 0.014
std. errors: 0.097 0.097
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00 0 11 6.040 0.870674 0.984 0.016
01 1 12 6.066 0.912698 1.000 0.000
10 1 12 122.121 2.33258e-20 0.000 1.000
best pat: 00 0.870674 - -
best pat: 01 0.912698 chi(nested): 0.026 p-value for nested model: 0.871204

The p-values of the nested models are astronomic. According to this analysis Finn's (=Rodoorn) parents are "pure" Danish from the Iron Age. Btw Denmark_IA is for the three individuals from Margaryan. Of course I used imputed genomes for Finn's parents (947035 SNPs). For the experts, I've taken the risk to keep the transitions."

But you may be annexed a bit  Is Schleswig-Holstein (heartland Angles and Saxon pirates), Scandic? Ok it's about the Danevirke. Nevertheless I do know that this area was counted as part of.....Jastorf area!  Süd-Germanen

[Jaska]

Rodoorn:
"So the idea the pre-Germanic, when it appear about 1900 BC at a time when Unetice was undisputable  the power house in Northern Europe, which was trending on several fronts, so why not language, is imo convincing.
The idea that because of the loans in Finnic en vice versa it had to be borderland Saami/Finnic is seen the early stage of pre-Germanic no loner legitimit."

Here I still must emphasize that linguistic processes cannot be reliably seen in archaeological or genetic data. There are always items, ideas, and people moving all around, to every direction. All these people spoke some language, but which language it was?

It is a common "blindness" to only stare at the survived languages, but in reality, when we trace these languages back thousands of years, vast majority of Europe was "empty" of them - that is, filled with languages which no longer exist. Therefore, we cannot only account for the extant languages, because earlier there was a multitude of languages since long gone. Any random cultural or genetic phenomenon may equally well be connected to some lost language - and the probability for that increases the further back in time we go.

Then to the linguistic evidence: 

1. There are innovations in phonology, morphology, and lexicon, shared by Germanic and some other Indo-European branches, bundled under label "Northwest Indo-European", see Mallory & Adams 2006: (https://smerdaleos.files.wordpress.com/2...-adams.pdf)
"A major group presumably created or maintained by contact is labelled the North-West group and comprises Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic (as one chain whose elements may have been in closer contact with one another), and additionally Italic and Celtic. The link between these languages is largely that of shared vocabulary items: thirty-eight were originally proposed but more recent studies list up to sixty-four lexical innovations, although they do not cross all languages uniformly."

Handbook of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, vol 1:
"...on the other hand, Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Germanic share at least three (the formation of the superlative, the shape of the mediopassive endings, and the thematic optative suffix), of which Balto-Slavic shares at least the last (the superlative and mediopassive having been lost). In other words, Germanic is an “eastern” language, in terms of its inflectional morphology, which nevertheless shares a good deal of vocabulary with the “western” subgroups, Italic and Celtic − an important pattern in need of an explanation which a purely lexical dataset simply cannot reveal."

2. Shared features between Celtic and Germanic are explained by Bronze Age contacts (see Koch mentioned earlier).

3. There are known loanword contacts between Germanic and Saami and Finnic. Later stages (Proto-Germanic > Northwest Germanic > Proto-Scandinavian) are beyond doubt, but earlier stages are more uncertain and open to interpretations (proposed loanwords in Finno-Permic languages from Pre-Proto-Germanic or at least some archaic centum-dialect).

We can see that there are east- and north-pulling factors, while the west-pulling factors are secondary and explainable with the Germanic location in Scandinavia, as Koch has thoroughly argued. There is nothing in the linguistic results especially requiring early Germanic presence in Central Europe, although the big picture still remains rather vague. 

Eventually, how could some cultural or genetic phenomena question the linguistic results? Of course there were people moving also from south to the north, but why should we expect that they were just Germanic speakers? The only scientific way for multidisciplinary research concerning language is (1) to accept the linguistic results, and then (2) see if there is an archaeological or genetic phenomenon matching its time, place, and direction of expansion.

[JonikW]

I advocate a population approach - the glottogenesis of proto-Germanic must be where the proto-Germanic tribes coalesced.
The dominance of R1b-U106 and I1, now attested beyond dispute in Iron Age and Roman era Germanic and Nordic people, places the Germanic homeland centred on Jutland (but being more expansive than that) within the cultural context of the NBA.

The Baltic zone & central -eastern Sweden are a periphery. Lang’s thesis about Bronze Age Germanic colonists in the east Baltic is in serious need of update, as they’re clearly “Balto-Slavs”.

Bit short of time so short story. With regard to R1b U106 the oldest sample is PLN001, just after 2900 BC from the upper Elbe in Bohemia.  That sample is pure Steppe like. From the same Elbe the Single Grave people went also short after 2900 BC to the North Sea area, see Egfjørd (2021). See also the works of Iain mc Donald.

For I1 are better experts around here, Jonik, an JmcB, but the short story there is that  I-M253 emerged in NBA. Isn't it Jonik and JmcB?

Apologies for having only just seen this, Rodoorn, and I need to catch up with the contents of this thread. I do feel that the expansion and distribution of I1 shown in aDNA studies to date suggests a potential correlation with the spread of PGmc.

You may remember I attempted to sketch out the current picture of what the ancient I1 samples show us in a post of August 25, 2023 here, followed by a much better summary by Strider99 on August 26, just below my own. You'll have to scroll down the page to see those two posts.

During the course of that August 25 post, I neglected to mention an I1 sample that seems to buck the trend in that he’s an I1 man found a good distance beyond Scandinavia before the Iron Age. This sample was poz643 from the Chylenski et al 2023 paper on East-Central Europe in the middle BA. The individual was found by the Dniester. While he was very low coverage, the contemporaneous female who shared his grave may have been a second-generation Scandinavian immigrant, based on an analysis conducted and posted by Angles on the first GenArchivist site. 

I think it’s possible then that the later riverine trade routes from Scandinavia to the south were in use long before we expected, and that poz643 may have been involved in the amber/copper exchange that was so important for the Nordic BA. Of course, that’s only a theory and I'd be happy to be proved wrong. In any case, he's an outlier and doesn't change the overall picture.

The sample mentioned by PopGenist82 on this current thread as being an I1 man from TRB Germany was OST003 from Ostorf. He was pre-I1, not I-M253+. Whatever the story with OST003’s lineage, it’s interesting that we currently see an Iron Age spread of I1 in any magnitude from its early Bronze Age heartland in Scandinavia into what have since historical times been the Germanic-speaking lands to the south. 

Perhaps that picture will change with more ancient samples or perhaps the data will simply confirm the link between an I1-rich population with an origin in Scandinavia and the movements involved in spreading PGmc and its successors to the extent that Germanic languages had, say, in the time of Tacitus. Either way, I’m sure we all look forward to finding out. I'm not interested in getting into any kind of dispute with anyone and simply wanted to respond to Rodoorn by outlining here the known facts and my understanding of them.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn:
"So the idea the pre-Germanic, when it appear about 1900 BC at a time when Unetice was undisputable  the power house in Northern Europe, which was trending on several fronts, so why not language, is imo convincing.
The idea that because of the loans in Finnic en vice versa it had to be borderland Saami/Finnic is seen the early stage of pre-Germanic no loner legitimit."

Here I still must emphasize that linguistic processes cannot be reliably seen in archaeological or genetic data. There are always items, ideas, and people moving all around, to every direction. All these people spoke some language, but which language it was?

It is a common "blindness" to only stare at the survived languages, but in reality, when we trace these languages back thousands of years, vast majority of Europe was "empty" of them - that is, filled with languages which no longer exist. Therefore, we cannot only account for the extant languages, because earlier there was a multitude of languages since long gone. Any random cultural or genetic phenomenon may equally well be connected to some lost language - and the probability for that increases the further back in time we go.

Then to the linguistic evidence: 

1. There are innovations in phonology, morphology, and lexicon, shared by Germanic and some other Indo-European branches, bundled under label "Northwest Indo-European", see Mallory & Adams 2006: (https://smerdaleos.files.wordpress.com/2...-adams.pdf)
"A major group presumably created or maintained by contact is labelled the North-West group and comprises Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic (as one chain whose elements may have been in closer contact with one another), and additionally Italic and Celtic. The link between these languages is largely that of shared vocabulary items: thirty-eight were originally proposed but more recent studies list up to sixty-four lexical innovations, although they do not cross all languages uniformly."

Handbook of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, vol 1:
"...on the other hand, Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Germanic share at least three (the formation of the superlative, the shape of the mediopassive endings, and the thematic optative suffix), of which Balto-Slavic shares at least the last (the superlative and mediopassive having been lost). In other words, Germanic is an “eastern” language, in terms of its inflectional morphology, which nevertheless shares a good deal of vocabulary with the “western” subgroups, Italic and Celtic − an important pattern in need of an explanation which a purely lexical dataset simply cannot reveal."

2. Shared features between Celtic and Germanic are explained by Bronze Age contacts (see Koch mentioned earlier).

3. There are known loanword contacts between Germanic and Saami and Finnic. Later stages (Proto-Germanic > Northwest Germanic > Proto-Scandinavian) are beyond doubt, but earlier stages are more uncertain and open to interpretations (proposed loanwords in Finno-Permic languages from Pre-Proto-Germanic or at least some archaic centum-dialect).

We can see that there are east- and north-pulling factors, while the west-pulling factors are secondary and explainable with the Germanic location in Scandinavia, as Koch has thoroughly argued. There is nothing in the linguistic results especially requiring early Germanic presence in Central Europe, although the big picture still remains rather vague. 

Eventually, how could some cultural or genetic phenomena question the linguistic results? Of course there were people moving also from south to the north, but why should we expect that they were just Germanic speakers? The only scientific way for multidisciplinary research concerning language is (1) to accept the linguistic results, and then (2) see if there is an archaeological or genetic phenomenon matching its time, place, and direction of expansion.

I can agree with most of what you stated. I am the one who repeatedly emphasizes that it is simply impossible to precisely determine a Proto-Germanic or Pre-Germanic Urheimat. This is due to the fact that we have no direct sources, such as an inscription and similar matters. And from the language itself, certainly not the modern one, but also not a reconstruction, you cannot pinpoint anything in terms of time and place. All you can do is make it plausible, reasoned from the context.

In this case I have adopted Koch's assumption, in 1900 BC we see the origin of pre-Germanic. Even if you add or subtract 400 (so 2300 BC or 1500 BC) the context for Northern Europe does not change. During that period you see Unetice making its mark in all areas in Northern Europe. There is even a common "language of forms" (vormentaal in Dutch), same rites etc of an apparently mobile elite. These are ideal conditions for a para-language, so for a kind of lingua franca. Given the context at the time, you cannot draw any other conclusion that if pre-Germanic originated around 1900, it was inside the Unetice koiné.

In essence, you can unleash our great linguist Thatcher on this: TINA. There Is No Alternative. From what other area could pre-Germanic have spread around 1900 BC? Angles' big favorite is the Malaren. Everything contradicts this, because then you would have to make it plausible that Southern Scandinavia and Central Northern Europe bore the stamp of Unetice in everything, but except for one thing, the language comes from the Malären? You mean you can pee into the wind, but then you know the effect. Just take the map of the language situation 500 BC in Scandinavia, at a glance this suggests Germanic from NE to SW or from SW to NE.... 



There is no substantiated narrative that the Malären were the cradle from 1900 BC of pre-Germanic. Nothing at all nothing! And with that I say nothing about the proto-Germanic period (LBA/IA) because the cards were completely different then. But also for that period we can wonder whether Denmark and its immediate surroundings are not more obvious (you already hinted in that direction above) than the Malären. What makes the Germanic Urheimat more than a figment of Angles' imagination? On what basis can this be made plausible? The only thing Angles was concerned about were the loan words, but you have already given an unequivocal answer to that yourself (because this only came into play after 1000 BC, when Pre-Germanic had already existed for almost a thousand years). 

I would like to adopt the argument that NBA (1500 BC>) and thus Scandinavia left a considerable mark on proto Germanic. And the bilingual situation on the hindquarters contributed to that. All at your service, but for pre-Germanic you have to be in Unetice and Scandinavia is practically impossible. Unless Angles still comes up with a plausible story, which isn't there yet!

[Rodoorn]

@ Jaska, some remarks and questions:
1. There are innovations in phonology, morphology, and lexicon, shared by Germanic and some other Indo-European branches, bundled under label "Northwest Indo-European", see Mallory & Adams 2006: (https://smerdaleos.files.wordpress.com/2...-adams.pdf)
"A major group presumably created or maintained by contact is labelled the North-West group and comprises Germanic, Baltic, and Slavic (as one chain whose elements may have been in closer contact with one another), and additionally Italic and Celtic. The link between these languages is largely that of shared vocabulary items: thirty-eight were originally proposed but more recent studies list up to sixty-four lexical innovations, although they do not cross all languages uniformly."
Handbook of Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, vol 1:
"...on the other hand, Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Germanic share at least three (the formation of the superlative, the shape of the mediopassive endings, and the thematic optative suffix), of which Balto-Slavic shares at least the last (the superlative and mediopassive having been lost). In other words, Germanic is an “eastern” language, in terms of its inflectional morphology, which nevertheless shares a good deal of vocabulary with the “western” subgroups, Italic and Celtic − an important pattern in need of an explanation which a purely lexical dataset simply cannot reveal."

Ok so in between Balto Slavic and Italic and Celtic, isn't the supposed Unetice koine just in the middle between this languages?:


2. Shared features between Celtic and Germanic are explained by Bronze Age contacts (see Koch mentioned earlier).

And he makes a route with Bell Beakers, NW Indo European etc that until NBA wasn't a Scandic affair but a North Central Europe one. Or were the Bell Beakers a Swedish phenomenon?


3. There are known loanword contacts between Germanic and Saami and Finnic. Later stages (Proto-Germanic > Northwest Germanic > Proto-Scandinavian) are beyond doubt, but earlier stages are more uncertain and open to interpretations (proposed loanwords in Finno-Permic languages from Pre-Proto-Germanic or at least some archaic centum-dialect).
We can see that there are east- and north-pulling factors, while the west-pulling factors are secondary and explainable with the Germanic location in Scandinavia, as Koch has thoroughly argued. There is nothing in the linguistic results especially requiring early Germanic presence in Central Europe, although the big picture still remains rather vague. 

Can you elaborate the pulling factors? What's that?  And which pulling factor ar a contradiction for pre Germanic in the Unetice koiné as shown on the map above?

Is this still correct? 
"Rodoorn, it is OK for me that the Nordic Bronze Age culture since 1500 BCE is connected to the Germanic lineage. This is early enough to explain the earliest proposed centum-loanwords into Finnic and Saami probably around 1000 BCE, followed by Paleo-Germanic loanwords already showing some changes (PIE *ō > *ā), later followed by Proto-Germanic, Northwest Germanic and Proto-Scandinavian loanwords into Finnic and Saami. I have no problem with Germanic lineage developing in Central Europe before that."

[Anglesqueville]

It would probably take more than an hour to correct everything in post #67 that needs to be corrected because this post mixes everything up, and frankly, I have better things to do. I would simply like to once again correct the genitive "Angle's" in the sentence "What makes the Germanic Urheimat more than a figment of Angles' imagination?". I will pass over the use of the word "imagination", a quality which has little to do here, and of which I am otherwise quite lacking. So I'm only correcting this genitive which could once again leave the unprepared reader thinking that this all just came from my head. This is simply false. As simple proof, I will cite Mikko Heikkilä (in his "Bidrag til etc"):

"Jag vill emellertid poängtera att södra Skandinavien och Mälardalen inte var något perifert språkområde av urgermanskan i slutet av bronsåldern och under förromersk järnålder, utan snarare “Germanias” kärnområde – ingen vagina gentium (omnium), men nog en vagina gentium germanorum, d.v.s. det germanska folkhemmet –, varifrån de germansktalande folkstammarna har spiridt sig i alla väderstreck"

I remind you that I do not necessarily agree with the last sentence ("varifrån de germansktalande folkstammarna har spiridt sig i alla väderstreck") because once again I do not think that it is necessary to invoke major migratory phenomena to explain the success of the PGmc. For the rest, I hope that this will be enough to attest that the equation "Mälaren = Angle" is wrong.

[Rodoorn]

It would probably take more than an hour to correct everything in post #67 that needs to be corrected because this post mixes everything up, and frankly, I have better things to do. I would simply like to once again correct the genitive "Angle's" in the sentence "What makes the Germanic Urheimat more than a figment of Angles' imagination?". I will pass over the use of the word "imagination", a quality which has little to do here, and of which I am otherwise quite lacking. So I'm only correcting this genitive which could once again leave the unprepared reader thinking that this all just came from my head. This is simply false. As simple proof, I will cite Mikko Heikkilä (in his "Bidrag til etc"):

"Jag vill emellertid poängtera att södra Skandinavien och Mälardalen inte var något perifert språkområde av urgermanskan i slutet av bronsåldern och under förromersk järnålder, utan snarare “Germanias” kärnområde – ingen vagina gentium (omnium), men nog en vagina gentium germanorum, d.v.s. det germanska folkhemmet –, varifrån de germansktalande folkstammarna har spiridt sig i alla väderstreck"

I remind you that I do not necessarily agree with the last sentence ("varifrån de germansktalande folkstammarna har spiridt sig i alla väderstreck") because once again I do not think that it is necessary to invoke major migratory phenomena to explain the success of the PGmc. For the rest, I hope that this will be enough to attest that the equation "Mälaren = Angle" is wrong.

Are we pick and choose the language now?

Veuroet din. Dat is ja aigoal wat ik die zegd heb. Hai schrift aan t énde van de Bronstied (LBA). Nait veur dij tied.

..... en veur de rest is't ja aal ain dikke kut boudel, aans niks ROFLOL

[Anglesqueville]

Apologise.
"I would like to emphasize, however, that southern Scandinavia and the Mälardalen were not a peripheral linguistic area of Proto-Germanic in the late Bronze Age and during the pre-Roman Iron Age, but rather the central area of "Germania" - not vagina gentium (omnium), but rather vagina gentium germanorum, i.e. home of the Germanic people - from which Germanic-speaking tribes arose in all directions."

[Mitchell-Atkins]

Diverse individuals were tested from Únětice burial sites in 2021, so the Y-chromosome results were (not included two by low coverage): 1 G2a2b2a, 1 I2a1, 8 I2a2, 7 R1a-Z645, and 8 R1b-P312. The investigators found that: "The Y-chromosomal data suggest an even larger turnover. A decrease of Y-lineage R1b-P312 from 100% (in late Bell Beaker Culture) to 20% (in preclassical Únětice) implies a minimum 80% influx of new Y-lineages at the onset of the Early Bronze Age". The autosomal results even point to a migration from the northeast, which the authors can link with the arrival of R1a-Z645, previously found in the Baltic region

(27 August 2021). "Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe". Science Advances

Does the above y dna turnover impact this Unetice theory?

[Rodoorn]

Apologise.
"I would like to emphasize, however, that southern Scandinavia and the Mälardalen were not a peripheral linguistic area of Proto-Germanic in the late Bronze Age and during the pre-Roman Iron Age, but rather the central area of "Germania" - not vagina gentium (omnium), but rather vagina gentium germanorum, i.e. home of the Germanic people - from which German-speaking tribes arose in all directions."

Indeed slutet av bronsåldern,  'in the late Bronze Age and during the pre-Roman Iron Age'.....as I mentioned several times here....

[Jaska]

Rodoorn:

“Given the context at the time, you cannot draw any other conclusion that if pre-Germanic originated around 1900, it was inside the Unetice koiné.”

“…if it was anywhere near that region”, you mean? And even then, I think there is some step missing. Why the Unetice language could not have been something totally different? There were at that time tens of since dead languages spoken in Europe. I try to find out your method here: how can you narrow it down to Pre-Proto-Germanic?

Rodoorn:

“There Is No Alternative. From what other area could pre-Germanic have spread around 1900 BC?”

Why is there no alternative? For example, there are traces of ancient centum-dialect in the East Baltic Region. Taken the ancient relationships that Germanic shows with other branches and families, how could you decisively exclude the possibility that the language spread from the East Baltics to Scandinavia?

And why should it be exactly 1900 BCE? It seems to me that you have already decided the time and the place for Pre-Proto-Germanic, but we have not yet seen the evidence supporting that time and place.

Rodoorn:

“And the makes a route with oa Bell Beakers etc that until NBA wasn't a Scandic affair but a North Central Europe one. Or were the Bell Beakers a Swedish phenomenon?”

I do not understand this question or its relevance for the topic.

Rodoorn:

“Can you elaborate the pulling factors? What's that?  And which pulling factor ar a contradiction for pre Germanic in the Unetice koiné as shown on the map above?”

Connections with Balto-Slavic and possible centum/Pre-Germanic dialect in the East Baltics pull Germanic to the east, and connections with Finnic and Saami pull Germanic to the north. At the moment there seem to be no linguistic results pulling Germanic to the south (to Central Europe).

Rodoorn:

“Is this still correct?
Jaska: ‘Rodoorn, it is OK for me that the Nordic Bronze Age culture since 1500 BCE is connected to the Germanic lineage.’ “

Yes, this is enough for me. But based on linguistic evidence, east-to-west spread for Germanic seems better substantiated than south-to-north. Therefore I asked for your evidence: why Unetice should be Pre-Proto-Germanic and not something else?

[Anglesqueville]

Jaska, I can answer this question ("why Unetice should be Pre-Proto-Germanic and not something else?"). The origin of all this is Euler's book "Sprache und Herkunft der Germanen: Abriss des Protogermanischen vor der Ersten Lautverschiebung", which contains all the elements of this Unetice = pre-proto-Germanic delirium. Why Unetice? Because Udolph installed proto-Germanic where you know, and Euler accepts Udolph's conclusion without questioning it. That Udolph does not take the slightest account of the Balto-Finnic side of the affair, that Udolph dismisses Scandinavia out of hand on vague toponymic considerations (even though he knows nothing about Scandinavian toponymy), that the Udolphian etymologies were destroyed by Bichlmeier (with extremely rare brutality among academics), Euler does not care. Finn-Folkwalding-Rodoorn is nothing more than an amateur version of Euler.

[Mitchell-Atkins]

Diverse individuals were tested from Únětice burial sites in 2021, so the Y-chromosome results were (not included two by low coverage): 1 G2a2b2a, 1 I2a1, 8 I2a2, 7 R1a-Z645, and 8 R1b-P312. The investigators found that: "The Y-chromosomal data suggest an even larger turnover. A decrease of Y-lineage R1b-P312 from 100% (in late Bell Beaker Culture) to 20% (in preclassical Únětice) implies a minimum 80% influx of new Y-lineages at the onset of the Early Bronze Age". The autosomal results even point to a migration from the northeast, which the authors can link with the arrival of R1a-Z645, previously found in the Baltic region

(27 August 2021). "Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe". Science Advances

Does the above y dna turnover impact this Unetice theory?

What I’m asking:   Did the 80% turnover usher in pre proto Germanic…from the northeast apparently
  
Or was pre proto Germanic already there and the 80% turnover had little effect?