About Proto-Germanic

[Rodoorn]

Jaska

“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:
Why is there a step missing? Could you elaborate this? Euler- with thanks to Angels- is indeed an important source, see his great book!
And these - I guess Scandic guys- I guess may be even Strider here, mention also this possibility:
https://genomicatlas.org/2021/04/25/gene...ge/#htoc-u

Unetice is the only culture that fits 100% in the scheme of Koch. Denmark is a good alternative, but EBA is likely too early there! Keep in mind that both area's share a Single Grave background (Egfjord 2021 even places the departure point in Elbe Saale) and also the interaction of the BB is in this area.  So Single Grave and BB are one big melting pot, with Unetice as it's ultimate blend. 

Could there be other dead languages.

Rodoorn:
Of course I can't exclude that. I have no definite proof, just with regard to the context, I have no prehistoric language source, no one has by the way.

“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?

Roodoorn:
There is only one culture In North Central Europe that was able to reach such a span that went into Southern Scandinavia (to about the area that spoke Germanic about 500 BC) , no other culture of that time reached that level. Could you identificate one?  If it was  the East Baltic it is strange that the Germanic speaking area's were concentrated in SW Scandinavia....

So there is imo no definite alternative for the birth and spread of pre-Germanic other than the Unetice room. Seen the conditions by Koch and what culture was able at that moment (1900 BC) to develop such a exposure to expand the Pre-Germanic language. The Unetice koine must have had consequences for the communication, isn't it?  A mobile elite that not only build the same kind of houses in Halle like in SW Scania, but also the same rites....it seems to me the mean of communication c.q. language can't be separated from that. Do you?

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:
It shouldn't it's Koch's assumption. But even with 400 plus or minus, it doesn't change the picture. Then still Unetice is the power house.

“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:
It matters Koch makes a connection between time and culture at stake. The route of Germanic passes CW>BB>NW Indo> Bronze Age.
Unetice Elbe/ Harz is the only area in Northern Europe that has "a check" for all these cultures and timeframe.

“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
Now you narrow it down. You first mentioned Balto-Slavic but also Italic and Celtic.
The Unetice koiné is the spider in the web between this languages!
Scandinavia is not suited for being a spider in this language web.

“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?

Rodoorn:
That's pretty enigmatic based on linguistic evidence? Which? Explain please. Unetice is key from east to west. And is a bridge from North Central to Scandinavia as VandKilde has shown (in EBA). Unetice is responsible for a kick start of NBA. But then they were also a kind of prop in Central Europe, which the Scandics of developing NBA could hardly ignore. After the collapses around 1500 we see a huge upwind of the NBA.

What else should it be? My imagination fails in this respect, do you have a suggestion?

I have no evidence. Pre-historic languages and sources are contradictio in terminis.

[Rodoorn]

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?

Thanks for the link, It endorses it. Because could we say that there was a kind of Balto-Slavic influx (as in language)? Makes it even more the middle ground between Single Grave/BB (west) and Balto-Slavic east?

The whole quote:
"EBA—Únětice culture
The transition to the EBA in Bohemia is associated with a positive shift in the coordinates of PC2, relative to preceding late BBs (Fig. 4B, fig. S7, and table S31). Admixture f3 statistics are most negative when EHG (Eastern HG) or WSHG (West Siberian HG) are used as a second source in addition to the geographically and temporally proximal Bohemia_BB_Late (table S32), suggesting a northeastern contribution to Bohemia_Únětice_preClassical. To find a suitable proxy for a potential additional source population, we modeled Bohemia_Únětice_preClassical as a two-way mixture of local Bohemia_BB_Late and various sources more positive on PC2 (table S33). We reject mixture models involving Bohemia_BB_Late and Yamnaya (Samara, P = 5.3 × 10−10; Kalmykia, P = 5.8 × 10−10; Ukraine, P = 7.3 × 10−12; and Caucasus, P = 3.2 × 10−15) or Bohemia_BB_Late and CW (early, P = 1.1 × 10−4; late, P = 5.4 × 10−6). We fail to reject a two-way mixture model of 63.5% Bohemia_BB_Early and 36.5% Bohemia_BB_Late (P = 0.29), suggesting a large (63.5%) contribution from an early BB lineage, which was largely unsampled during the late BB phase (2400 to 2200 BCE), but represents a potential new lineage at the dawn of the Bronze Age. The Y-chromosomal data suggest an even larger turnover. A decrease of Y-lineage R1b-P312 from 100% (in late BB) to 20% (in preclassical Únětice) implies a minimum 80% influx of new Y-lineages at the onset of the EBA.
However, aware of the limited resolution of Bohemia_BB_Early (small sample size, low resolution, and large SEs), we explored alternative models for preclassical Únětice individuals. All model fits improve when Latvia_BA is included in the sources, resulting in two additional supported models (table S33). A three-way mixture of Bohemia_BB_Late, Bohemia_CW_Early, and Latvia_BA (P value of 0.086) not only supports a more conservative estimate of 47.7% population replacement but also accounts for the Y-chromosomal diversity found in preclassical Únětice, with R1b-P312 from Bohemia_BB_Late, R1b-U106 and I2 from Bohemia_CW_Early, and R1a-Z645 from Latvia_BA (
Although the geographic origin of this new ancestry cannot be precisely located, three observations offer clues. First, the Latvia_BA ancestry that improves all model fits (table S33) suggests an ultimate northeastern origin. Second, Y-haplogroup R1a-Z645 appears in Bohemia (and wider central Europe) for the first time at the beginning of the EBA, a lineage previously fixed in Baltic and common in Scandinavian CW males (23, 24), supporting a north/northeastern genetic contribution. Third, an Únětice genetic outlier (VLI051, male, Y-haplogroup R1a-Z645; table S34) resembles individuals from Bronze Age Latvia (Fig. 2D) (68), providing direct evidence for migrants from the northeast.
We also detect a genetic shift in the transition from preclassical to classical Únětice, reflected in the decrease in PC2 coordinates for Únětice individuals dated after ~2000 BCE (Fig. 4B and fig. S7) and confirmed using qpWave (table S35) and f4 statistics (table S36). Bohemia_Únětice_Classical can be modeled as a mixture of Bohemia_Únětice_preClassical and a local Eneolithic source (table S37). In contrast to the genetic shift between late BB and preclassical Únětice, the Y-lineage diversity remains similar throughout both Únětice phases, suggesting assimilation and subtler social changes."

[Rodoorn]

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.

As long as you underline your idea's with a kind of vaginal centered quote I have no doubt who the real amateur is. I have no problem to be an amateur whatsoever. I leave that to nothing more than wannabe Angles.

[Jaska]

Rodoorn:

“Why is there a step missing? Could you elaborate this?”

I meant that I have not seen the evidence which forces the Germanic language lineage within the Unetice Culture. Therefore I cannot understand why you advocate it as the only option. 

Rodoorn:

“Denmark is a good alternative, but EBA is likely too early there! Keep in mind that both area's share a Single Grave background (Egfjord 2021 even places the departure point in Elbe Saale) and also the interaction of the BB is in this area.”

Every culture has several roots. We cannot see from the archaeological record which root was connected to certain language, any more than we can see it from the genetic results.

Rodoorn:

“I have no definite proof, just with regard to the context, I have no prehistoric language source, no one has by the way.”

We have knowledge where languages were spoken, based on shared features, loanword contacts, and words denoting to objects with restricted distribution. Admittedly, there is still much we do not know about the location of early stages of the Germanic lineage, but nothing we know forces it within the Unetice Culture.

Rodoorn:

“There is only one culture In North Central Europe that was able to reach such a span that went into Southern Scandinavia (to about the area that spoke Germanic about 500 BC) , no other culture of that time reached that level. Could you identificate one?  If it was  the East Baltic it is strange that the Germanic speaking area's were concentrated in SW Scandinavia....”

First, why should it be a culture in North Central Europe? You have locked the location already, when we are just only looking for evidence and mapping the alternatives. For example, the Corded Ware Culture spread to Sweden from the east – why this offshoot could not have brought the seed which began to develop towards Germanic?

Naturally, the Middle Iron Age locations of Germanic tribes cannot testify for locations several millennia earlier.

Rodoorn:

“It matters Koch makes a connection between time and culture at stake. The route of Germanic passes CW>BB>NW Indo> Bronze Age.
Unetice Elbe/ Harz is the only area in Northern Europe that has "a check" for all these cultures and timeframe.”

OK, thank you. I will check his argumentation later.

Rodoorn:

“Now you narrow it down. You first mention Balto-Slavic but also Italic and Celtic.
The Unetice koiné is the spider in the web between this languages!
Scandinavia is not suited for being a spider in this language web.”

True, but these developments seem to have occurred soon after the disintegration of Late Proto-Indo-European – that is, before there even was the Unetice Culture.

Rodoorn:

“That's pretty enigmatic based on linguistic evidence? Which? Explain please. Unetice is key from east to west. And is a bridge from North Central to Scandinavia as VandKilde has shown (in EBA). Unetice is responsible for a kick start for NBA. But then they were also a kind of prop in Central Europe, which the Scandics of developing NBA could hardly ignore. After the collapses around 1500 we see a huge upwind of the NBA.”

Every culture has several roots. Even if Unetice is one root for Nordic Bronze Age Culture, it cannot prove that the latter inherited the language from the former.

Rodoorn:

“What else should it be? My imagination fails in this respect, do you have a suggestion?”

One of those nameless ancient Paleo-European languages pre-dating the Indo-Europeanization, which have died mostly long before writing. Only in the Mediterranean Europe there survived several languages long enough to be written: Basque, Iberian, Tartessian, Etruscan, Pelasgian, Rhaetic etc.

That we cannot name those languages does not make them non-existent: the continent was inhabited long before the arrival of Indo-Europeans.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn:

“Why is there a step missing? Could you elaborate this?”

I meant that I have not seen the evidence which forces the Germanic language lineage within the Unetice Culture. Therefore I cannot understand why you advocate it as the only option. 

@Jaska, no force, but at that time (EBA) in Northern Europe there was no level playing field. Unetice Elbe Saale was leading. So if Unetice spoke pre-Swahili the Swedes probably spoke Swahili today

Rodoorn:

“Denmark is a good alternative, but EBA is likely too early there! Keep in mind that both area's share a Single Grave background (Egfjord 2021 even places the departure point in Elbe Saale) and also the interaction of the BB is in this area.”

Every culture has several roots. We cannot see from the archaeological record which root was connected to certain language, any more than we can see it from the genetic results.

@Jaska, yes but NE Scandinavia, or the East Baltic, doesn't fit in this picture for the Germanic language as signed by Koch:



Rodoorn:

“I have no definite proof, just with regard to the context, I have no prehistoric language source, no one has by the way.”

We have knowledge where languages were spoken, based on shared features, loanword contacts, and words denoting to objects with restricted distribution. Admittedly, there is still much we do not know about the location of early stages of the Germanic lineage, but nothing we know forces it within the Unetice Culture.

@Jaska
Ok put it the other way around if we have the knowledge what could be the plausible alternative? 


Rodoorn:

“There is only one culture In North Central Europe that was able to reach such a span that went into Southern Scandinavia (to about the area that spoke Germanic about 500 BC) , no other culture of that time reached that level. Could you identificate one?  If it was  the East Baltic it is strange that the Germanic speaking area's were concentrated in SW Scandinavia....”

First, why should it be a culture in North Central Europe? You have locked the location already, when we are just only looking for evidence and mapping the alternatives. For example, the Corded Ware Culture spread to Sweden from the east – why this offshoot could not have brought the seed which began to develop towards Germanic?
Naturally, the Middle Iron Age locations of Germanic tribes cannot testify for locations several millennia earlier.

@Jaska because this culture had about 1900BC  a tremendous influence on every region that later on spoke Germanic!
If we had signs that  for example the Polada culture of Northern Italy had the same influence  we had an alternative, but it wasn't.
Battle Axe could indeed have had that effect, but  was only limited to parts of Scandinavia. Then you have to make plausible that the Single Grave heirs from Denmark to the Ore Mountains began to cc Battle Axe language. What could be a reason?
And again why was SW Scandinavia core Germanic speaking with a Battle Axe entry from the NE?
And also again I see a center of gravity shift in the Germanic circuit after the collaps of Unetice, then (LBA/IA) we get in Angles vaginal vallhalla spheres....no doubt!

Rodoorn:

“It matters Koch makes a connection between time and culture at stake. The route of Germanic passes CW>BB>NW Indo> Bronze Age.
Unetice Elbe/ Harz is the only area in Northern Europe that has "a check" for all these cultures and timeframe.”

OK, thank you. I will check his argumentation later.

Rodoorn:

“Now you narrow it down. You first mention Balto-Slavic but also Italic and Celtic.
The Unetice koiné is the spider in the web between this languages!
Scandinavia is not suited for being a spider in this language web.”

True, but these developments seem to have occurred soon after the disintegration of Late Proto-Indo-European – that is, before there even was the Unetice Culture.


Rodoorn:

“That's pretty enigmatic based on linguistic evidence? Which? Explain please. Unetice is key from east to west. And is a bridge from North Central to Scandinavia as VandKilde has shown (in EBA). Unetice is responsible for a kick start for NBA. But then they were also a kind of prop in Central Europe, which the Scandics of developing NBA could hardly ignore. After the collapses around 1500 we see a huge upwind of the NBA.”

Every culture has several roots. Even if Unetice is one root for Nordic Bronze Age Culture, it cannot prove that the latter inherited the language from the former.

@Jaska
What kind of language did they speak in LBA and IA along the Elbe do you think? Most plausible: proto Germanic (a la Elbe region


Rodoorn:

“What else should it be? My imagination fails in this respect, do you have a suggestion?”

One of those nameless ancient Paleo-European languages pre-dating the Indo-Europeanization, which have died mostly long before writing. Only in the Mediterranean Europe there survived several languages long enough to be written: Basque, Iberian, Tartessian, Etruscan, Pelasgian, Rhaetic etc.
That we cannot name those languages does not make them non-existent: the continent was inhabited long before the arrival of Indo-Europeans.

@Jaska
That makes that one of the most profiled cultures of LNBA in a very big part of North Central Europe (partly Southern Scandinavia) spoke a NN language that went extinct....everything is possible, but looks fare fetched to me. And mind you the Uneticians were IE,  related to Single Grave etc etc. No no no Swahili!

[Quint]

The main conclusion from the loanword layer in Finno-Samic is that Proto-Germanic must have originated much further east than its later point of dispersal. It may be of interest how many, if any, of these loanwords are shared with Mordvinic, which does seem to be the latest to branch off from Finnic and Sami.

[Anglesqueville]

The main conclusion from the loanword layer in Finno-Samic is that Proto-Germanic must have originated much further east than its later point of dispersal. It may be of interest how many, if any, of these loanwords are shared with Mordvinic, which does seem to be the latest to branch off from Finnic and Sami.

I imagine that Jaska is much better informed about the Mordvinic languages than I am, but I find it hard to imagine why these languages should have more than scattered ancient Germanic loanwords. The large mass of early Germanic lexical borrowings in Finnish and Saami were acquired in Finland, which was probably the eastern frontier of Germanic settlement. Particularly with regard to Finnish, it is very likely that the vast majority of loanwords were acquired from situations of prolonged bilingualism ( followed by assimilation) within colonies established on the west coast, in permanent contact with the " motherland" (the "vagina gentorum" of Jordanes, taken up by Heikkilä), which in my opinion constitutes the decisive argument allowing it to be located in Sweden. The Volga and Mordvins are far from this. It is obviously very different for the Baltic loans.

[Orentil]

I also do not intend to turn this linguistic thread about proto(!)-germanic into a genetic thread about pre(!)-germanic but in addition to what JonikW mentioned I think everybody should keep the great graphs of Allentoft et al. (2022) in mind showing the haplogroup development over time in Southern Scandinavia:
R1a wave connected to battle axe culture (east)
R1b wave connected to single grave culture (south)
I1 wave of unclear origin during the dagger period (I1 not found so far in Unetice)

[Anglesqueville]

I reiterate once again my doubts about this study, or rather about the hasty interpretations that can be made of it. The word "doubts" is perhaps poorly chosen. Maybe just “discomfort”. These graphs are "based on pairwise IBD sharing", they should therefore not be seen through our habits, deeply marked by PCAs based on allele statistics. My feeling (here again I choose a vague and weak word) is that the use of "pairwise IBD sharing" perhaps very excessively favours recent gene flows to the detriment of background constitutions. Moreover, Allentoft seems to be more or less aware of this when he recalls that all this is placed in a context of genomewide continuity. Reading this I keep in mind the observations from my own experience of IBDs. I've told this a hundred times already. My own ethnic makeup includes a minor Finnish genealogical part (inherited from a great-great-grandmother). If I do a study of IBDs the segments from Finnish individuals overwhelm everything else. MyHeritage, which basically does the same thing, gives me 499 Finnish genetic matches, far ahead of all the others (France is only at 170). But am I anything like a French-speaking Finn? Of course not. Above all, conversely, given the context of the discussion, has this recent genetic contribution had any influence on my "linguistic identity" (if I dare to invent such a concept)? Not at all. So simply, be careful with how you interpret Allentoft (notwithstanding the great value of this astounding study).

[Jaska]

Rodoorn:

“That makes that one of the most profiled cultures of LNBA in a very big part of North Central Europe (partly Southern Scandinavia) spoke a NN language that went extinct....everything is possible, but looks fare fetched to me. And mind you the Uneticians were IE,  related to Single Grave etc etc. No no no Swahili!”

Every culture has several roots and influence from many other cultures. Any such phenomenon might have spread a new language. Therefore, it is not possible to claim continuity of language based on archaeological continuity – that method is invalid and produces contradicting results.
https://www.alkuperasivusto.fi/Uralic.html

Because also every population (possibly excluding very remote islands) has several roots, it is equally impossible to claim continuity of language based on genetic continuity. This appears to be a difficult principle to understand for many people, who would like to see the connection simpler and more straightforward. However, our shared reality does not allow such unrealistic views.

Quint:

“The main conclusion from the loanword layer in Finno-Samic is that Proto-Germanic must have originated much further east than its later point of dispersal. It may be of interest how many, if any, of these loanwords are shared with Mordvinic, which does seem to be the latest to branch off from Finnic and Sami.”

In Mordvin, there are no certain direct Proto-Germanic loanwords, although there are some possible Gothic loanwords. But the early stages of Germanic lineage have been connected to certain proposed Pre-Proto-Germanic loanwords: borrowings from a centum-dialect with preserved cognate in Germanic. However, there are only few such words and their status is considered rather uncertain. Those are preceded by archaic Northwest Indo-European loanwords in Finno-Permic languages; there are many of these, but recently some have been explained otherwise and some have been questioned. There are still dozens requiring modern critical reassessment.

[PopGenist82]

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.

haha, give it a chance. Who knows ? I was initially skeptical, but let us wait for aDNA from M-LBA central and northern Germany which is woefully under-sampled. 

To be sure, the ''Nordic connections'' appear long before Wielbark - in the LBA Lausitz and House Urn phenomenon, which show some sort of connection between Scandinavia & the Continent 

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?

It depends which 'phase' we are talking about ? 
As I suggested, the formative movements which led to the agglomoeration of proto-Germanic tribes came from outside Scandinavia, from multiple directions. But the embryogenesis might have occurred there, esp if we count Jutland as Scandinavia.

I see Unetice as more of a conglomeracy of trade connections, it has too much non-Nordic i2a and R1a-Z280 to be 'core Germanic' (in a brief overview, obviously thesis cant rest on a brief mention of Y-DNA).

[PopGenist82]

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.

Absolutely no problem with that. Extensive Finnic , Saami and Germanic contacts are still consistent with the classical / 'archaeogenetic' proposal of Germanic homeland , especially given that we (or at least those who agree with aDNA) know that western Uralic speakers were in eastern Feno-Scandia and the East Baltic by 1500 BC, and even peripheral outposts like Bolshoi Oleni Ostrov show a beautiful syncretism of eastern & nordic elements in burials. Such exchange can only have been facilitated by intensive cultural & linguistic contact.

But that doest not pull up the proto-Germanic homeland far to the northeast any more than it draws the origins of FU to the West. These loan observations only require intense contacts between segments of society which then diffuse ideas & loans back throughout the mass of their respective linguistic communities rather than mass co-habitation.

[Jaska]

PopGenist82:

“Absolutely no problem with that. Extensive Finnic , Saami and Germanic contacts are still consistent with the classical / 'archaeogenetic' proposal of Germanic homeland , especially given that we (or at least those who agree with aDNA) know that western Uralic speakers were in eastern Feno-Scandia and the East Baltic by 1500 BC, and even peripheral outposts like Bolshoi Oleni Ostrov show a beautiful syncretism of eastern & nordic elements in burials. Such exchange can only have been facilitated by intensive cultural & linguistic contact.”

By “western Uralic speakers” you actually mean Siberian ancestry component and paternal lineage N? You should not confuse different levels which have no mutual dependency. You do not want to fall into circular argumentation.

1. In East Baltic these genetic phenomena only occur ca. 500 BCE from the east (Saag et al. 2019), which may be too late for Finnic speakers and even follows wrong route (in the Lang’s model the Finnic language arrived via the Daugava route and already ca. 1000 BCE). Sure, they could still represent some other West Uralic group (many of those became extinct). But which one, that we cannot see from DNA.

2. To Kola Peninsula (BOO) the Siberian ancestry and the N-haplogroup seem to have arrived already in the early second millennium BCE. Their connection to the Uralic languages is highly improbable, taken that there were yet no Uralic (meaning: descendant languages of Late Proto-Uralic) speakers anywhere near the source region or the target region. Of course, one can speculate that they were some Para-Uralic (meaning: not descendant languages of LPU, but more distantly related) speakers deriving from the Ymyyakhtakh Culture. However, Kola Peninsula shows the presence of Paleo-Laplandic languages (not related to Uralic) before it became Saami-speaking less than 2000 years ago. 

PopGenist82:

“But that doest not pull up the proto-Germanic homeland far to the northeast any more than it draws the origins of FU to the West. These loan observations only require intense contacts between segments of society which then diffuse ideas & loans back throughout the mass of their respective linguistic communities rather than mass co-habitation.”

Still, languages borrow a lot only from the neighboring languages, and next to nothing from more distant languages. Therefore, massive loanword layers require adjacency of the speech areas. But before the actual Proto-Germanic stage, there were considerably fewer loanwords.

[Anglesqueville]

^^ I agree with that. In this case, it is not only a question of the diffusion of ideas and objects, nothing comparable for example with the few borrowings attested from the Celtic branch to the Germanic. The semantic spectrum of borrowings requires, as has been noted by many authors for a long time, the existence of a tradition of bilingualism whose history is prolonged by a phenomenon of assimilation, and this could not happen elsewhere than in Finland. This simple fact makes the Jastorf hypothesis at least "problematic", to use Holopainen and Saarikivi's word.

[Rodoorn]

Rodoorn:

“That makes that one of the most profiled cultures of LNBA in a very big part of North Central Europe (partly Southern Scandinavia) spoke a NN language that went extinct....everything is possible, but looks fare fetched to me. And mind you the Uneticians were IE,  related to Single Grave etc etc. No no no Swahili!”

Every culture has several roots and influence from many other cultures. Any such phenomenon might have spread a new language. Therefore, it is not possible to claim continuity of language based on archaeological continuity – that method is invalid and produces contradicting results.
https://www.alkuperasivusto.fi/Uralic.html
Because also every population (possibly excluding very remote islands) has several roots, it is equally impossible to claim continuity of language based on genetic continuity. This appears to be a difficult principle to understand for many people, who would like to see the connection simpler and more straightforward. However, our shared reality does not allow such unrealistic views.

----------------------------------------

@Jaska, what is clear that Unetice was in the IE range, also in language. They have of course a link with the Schönfelder culture (Funnelbeaker derrived). But as Harald Meller has stated Unetice is pirmarly a blend of Single Grave and Bell Beakers. So all within the IE realm, Hecht:

Single Grave and Bell Beakers were real existing cultures so can't be reduced to genetics.

Sec for the linguistics Unetice was literally in the middle between Balto-Slavic, Celtic and Italic. So I guess we have to search in the IE range and definitely not: "One of those nameless ancient Paleo-European languages pre-dating the Indo-Europeanization"