How far to the south in Eastern Europe did the Finno-Ugrians live?

8 Pages·0.536 MB·English

by  Wiik K.

Fennoscandia archaeologica XIV (1997)
Kalevi Wiik
HOW FAR TO THE SOUTH IN EASTERN EUROPE DID THE FINNO-UGRIANS
LIVE?
Abstract
The author advances a theory on the movement of the language boundary between the Finno-
Ugric and Indo-European languages in eastern Europe during approximately the last 8000
years. The language boundary was presumably ’’originally” on the Black Sea and has mo­
ved northwards ever since. It first followed the spread of the change in the subsistence sys­
tem (the emergence of agriculture and stock-breeding) and later the spread of eastern trade
and church. The Baltic and Slavic languages developed as the result of the aboriginal Finno-
Ugric populations’ shifting their language to Indo-European.
Keywords: subsistence boundary, language boundary, language shift, phonetic substratum.
Kalevi Wiik, Valpurintie 9 D, FIN-20300 Turku, Finland.
The southern limit of the Finnic peoples speaking ducers (Dolukhanov 1979:196-7). At this stage, the
western Finno-Ugric languages in the east-Baltic boundary between the two means of livelihood was
region is currently the border between eastern/ also a language boundary: the lingua franca of the
south-eastern Estonia and Russia and that between hunters, fishers and gatherers of northern Europe
southem/south-westem Estonia and Latvia. In con­ was made up of the dialects of the Uralic proto-lan­
sidering in this article the question of where the guage, while the lingua franca of the farmers, cat­
Finnic languages (e.g. Finnish, Estonian, and Li- tle-raisers, and stock-breeders of southern and east­
vonian/Livic) and their predecessors (Proto-Uralic, ern Europe was composed of the dialects of the
Proto-Finno-Ugric, and Proto-Finnic) were spoken Indo-European proto-language. The subsistence
in the past, I rely mostly on recent archaeological and language boundary ran from the Netherlands,
and linguistic research. I refer to those archaeolo­ through central Germany and along the southern
gists and linguists who suggest that Indo-European border of Poland, to follow approximately the mod­
(Ш) languages (e.g. first Proto-Indo-European, em border of the Ukraine as far as the Black Sea.
then perhaps Proto-Balto-Slavic, later Proto-Baltic From there it continued north-eastwards to the
and Proto-Slavic, and later still Latvian, Lithua­ southern Urals (Dolukhanov 1979:197; see Map 1,
nian, Prussian, and the eastern Slavic languages of boundary -5500). Accordingly, about 7500 years
Russian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian) at one time ago the Uralic proto-language was probably spo­
spread to Finno-Ugric (FU) linguistic areas along­ ken (when considering only the areas south of the
side agriculture, cattle-raising, and stock-breeding. eastern Baltic region) as far south as the Dnieper
The shift of the subsistence systems (hunting > estuary and the Black Sea. According to Doluk­
farming) was often followed by the shift of lan­ hanov (1989:84), a Russian archaeologist, "one
guages (FU > Ш). may imply that the Upper Palaeolithic Periglacial
1.6000-5000 BC. During the б* millennium Eu­ zone as a whole was populated by the direct pre­
rope was divided into two basic subsistence zones, decessors of Proto-Uralian speakers. ” And ac­
the inhabitants of northern Europe being food ap- cording to Thomason and Kaufman (1988:238-9),
propriators and those of southern Europe food pro­ two American linguists, the Baltic and Slavic spea-
23
Map 1. Boundaries -5500, -4000, -3000, -2000, +1000, and +1500 indicate the approximate position of the southern
boundary of the FU languages at different times. The minus mark before the year = BC. On the map, the region
of the emergence of Proto-Germanic is included, even if this area is not much touched upon in the text Broken
lines designate boundaries within a language group (e.g. Baltic vs. Slavic). G = proto-Germanic, В = proto­
Baltic, S = proto-Slavic, and I = Indo-Irani an.
kers "expanded northward and eastward from their Europe through the Balkans, while the latter had
original homeland" and "they encountered speak­ used the eastern route via the Caucasus/eastem
ers of non-IE languages, including (but probably Caspian to reach the Black Sea - Caspian steppes
not confined to) Uralic”. In their book, Thomason (Zvelebil 1995c:55). The first farming culture of
and Kaufman then deal with about thirty pieces central Europe was the Linear Pottery culture
of linguistic evidence to show that the language (linearbandkeramik от LBK), at its eastern extent
shift Uralic/FU > Ш really has taken place in the (to the north-west of the Black Sea) linked to an­
area. other important Ш farming culture, the Tripolye-
The EE zone of the food producers reaching from Cucuteni culture. The stock-breeding culture of the
western Europe to the south of the Ural mountains Black Sea - Caspian steppes was the Kurgan cul­
consisted of two halves: the western half belonged ture (in Russian archaeology ’’early Yamna”,
to the farmers and cattle-raisers of the central Euro­ ’’Mikhailovka I” or ’’Maikop”, and ’’late Yamna”).
pean loess lands, while the eastern one belonged to The nearest northern neighbours of the Ш food-
the stock-breeders of the Black Sea - Caspian producing cultures, those of the Uralic-speaking
steppes. The former had probably arrived in central food-appropriators, were, from west to east, the
24
cultures of Maglemose-Kongemose, Swidry-Nie- Germany, Denmark, and southwestern Sweden
men, Dniester-Bug, Dnieper-Donetz, Volga-Oka gave rise to Proto-Germanic.
and Kama. Many achaeologists and linguists seem to have
2. 5000-4000 BC. Three things essential from arrived at similar conclusions in respect of the ori­
the point of view of the present article happened in gins of the Baltic and Slavic proto-languages. Both
eastern Europe during the latter half of the 5* mil­ seem to agree in that the Balto-Slavic languages
lennium: (1) Agriculture spread to northern Europe were formed under the substratal influence of the
reaching the southern shore of the Baltic Sea by languages/dialects of the aboriginal populations,
4200 BC. (2) Agriculture also spread to the north of and many also maintain that the aboriginal popu­
the Black Sea from the Tripolye-Cucuteni cultural lations in question spoke a Uralic/Finno-Ugric lan-
area to the Dniester-Bug and Dnieper-Donetz guage/dialect (cf. e.g. Zvelebil 1995c:55 and Tho­
regions (Dolukhanov 1986:8, Zvelebil 1995b: 122 mason & Kaufman 1988:43,58,97,114,119,123,
and Gimbutas 1991:113). (3) Stock-breeding 238-251). I content myself here by giving two pho­
spread to the same area at the estuary of the netic examples of the linguistic reflexes probably
Dnieper from the Kurgan culture in the east (Gim­ caused by the Finno-Ugrians shifting their lan­
butas 1991:358-9; cf. the two separate lines marked guage to an IE one. Both examples are true of the
-4000 on Map 1). Germanic proto-language, as well, which suggests
It is, therefore, possible that towards the end of that these features were once common to the
the 5* millennium BC, the Dnieper estuary (the Germano-Balto-Slavic proto-language. As mentio­
southern part of the Dnieper-Donetz culture) was a ned above, many other examples are given in
trilingual area: within it, in addition to the Uralic Thomason & Kaufman (1988) and elsewhere.
language of the aboriginal inhabitants, two dialects (1) Merger of short and long a and о into an &
of the IE proto-language (the western dialect of the (which later developed into an а-like vowel in the
Tripolye-Cucuteni culture and the eastern dialect short series and into an о-like vowel in the long se­
of the Kurgan culture) were spoken. ries in the Baltic (and Germanic) proto-language,
3.4000-3000 BC. During the 4*1 millennium, ag­ and into an о-like vowel in the short series and into
riculture continued to spread in eastern Europe an а-like vowel in the long series in the Slavic
reaching now (1) the middle and upper Dnieper re­ proto-language). What is common to the Baltic and
gion (Zvelebil 1995:122) and (2) the entire area of Slavic (and also the Germanic) proto-languages in
the Niemen culture (Dolukhanov 1986:8; cf. boun­ this respect is that the opposition between the a-like
dary marked -3000 on Map 1). In western Europe, and о-like vowels was neutralized. A probable
agriculture now spread to Northern Germany, Den­ cause for the neutralization was the labial or d-like
mark and Scania. pronunciation of the low back vowel in the FU
Towards the end of the millennium, the subsist­ proto-language (Janhunen 1981).
ence system and (perhaps somewhat later) the lan­ (2) Palatalization of consonants. There was no
guage boundary ran along the southern border of phonological palatalization in the consonants of the
the Narva culture and the Typical Combed Ware EE proto-language, while this pheneomenon was
culture, or in a great sweep following the modem common in the (dental) consonants of the FU
Polish and Memel-Lithuanian border. The popu­ proto-language. The "soft” pronunciation remained
lations of the middle and upper Dnieper and as a FU substratal feature (”FU accent”) in the Bal­
Niemen regions may conceivably have shifted then- tic and Slavic proto-languages. As a matter of fact,
language from Finno-Ugric to Indo-European by it probably also occured (as a non-phonological
3000 BC. An equivalent language shift took place feature) in the Germanic proto-language. (In the
in the western area consisting of North Germany, daughter languages of Proto-Germanic, the feature
Denmark, and southwestern Sweden as this area was later one of the factors leading to the palatali­
was indoeuropeanised. zation of the stressed vowels and giving rise to the
The language shift FU>IE, which occurred in the umlauts in western and northern Germanic lan­
middle and upper Dnieper and Niemen regions dur­ guages; cf. modem German Hand - Hande).
ing the 4* millennium, may mark the birth of Pro- Extensive inventories of the FU substratum fea­
to-Balto-Slavic (Dolukhanov 1986:11, Zvelebil tures in the Baltic and Slavic languages are found,
1995c:55 and Wiik 1996:584-6). The mixed lan­ for example, in the following publications: Ро­
guage of the lower Dnieper area (referred to as the коту 1936, Dćcsy 1967, Veenker 1967, Kiparsky
area of three languages/dialects above) may desig­ 1969, Thomason & Kaufman 1988, Rauldco &
nate the origin of the Indo-Iranian languages (cf. Óstman 1994 and KUnnap 1997.
Zvelebil 1995c:55) or one of the dialects of these In addition to the pieces of linguistic evidence
languages. The equivalent language shift in North hinted at above, there are several other types of in­
25
dication to show that south-eastern and eastern Eu­ hed the boundary between the Baltic and Finno-
rope was once Finno-Ugric: Ugric languages. I assume that it was pushed to
(a) The area of the FU hydronyms (names of near the present-day boundary between Latvia and
rivers and lakes) comprises practically the entire Lithuania (a distance of about 150 kilometres from
area of eastern and south-eastern Europe under the Niemen), and also that during this period the
consideration. FU hydronyms have been found not whole area as far as Moscow and Kiev became at
only in the area from the Baltic Sea to the hinter­ least partly Balticised: the many Baltic hydronyms
land of Moscow and Kiev but also in the Ukraine are a testament to this (Gimbutiene 1995:55). Thus
and Poland (Lehr-Sptawin’ski 1946). In Latvia by 2000 BC, or somewhat later, the language bo­
there are hundreds of Finnic hydronyms (Rudzite undary could be line -2000 on Map 1. Now also the
1968) and other place names (Ancltis & Jansons distinction between Proto-Slavic (of the middle
1963 and Boiko 1993); in Lithuania the number of and upper Dnieper) and Proto-Baltic (of the Nie­
Finnic hydronyms is about 40 (Vanagas 1981:145). men basin) took place; cf. e.g. Zvelebil (1995c:55):
(b) The vast FU linguistic area of the millennia ”Balto-Slavic continued to develop in the middle
and centuries of the past can in many instances be Dnieper basin, the divergence between the two
attested through the many FU language islands families occurring probably around 2000 be or
within the Baltic and Slavic languistic areas. Ex­ later with the adoption of farming in the eastern
amples of small scale language island in Latvia Baltic (KW: the Niemen basin) at the end of the
(now extinct) are the Estonian language areas of Corded-Ware/Boat-Axe cultural horizon. ”
Koiva, Lutsi, and Kraasna and the Livonian area In various parts of the Lithuanian region the lan­
of Salatsi. In Russia, there still were several FU guage shift FU>B may have occurred around 2000
language islands when such now extinct languages BC. Indeed, in this area (and throughout the south­
as Merya, Meshera, Muroma, and Zavolochkan ern Baltic region) the numbers speaking the Proto­
Tshude still were spoken about a thousand years Finnic language of the Typical Combed Ware cul­
ago. It is a common feature of language shift areas ture were small, so that late Proto-Finnic failed to
that linguistic islands are left within the area of the leave a strong substratum in either the Lithuanian
winning language before the extinction of the van­ or Old Prussian languages (Jaanits et al 1982:124).
ishing languages. In Scandinavia, the area of Proto-Germanic was
(c) There is also historical evidence (early simultaneously widened to the approximate line
chronicles) that inevitably show that the FU lin­ between Oslo and Stockholm.
guistic area was considerably wider in the past (to­ 5. 2000-500 BC. During this period, which in­
wards the end of the first millennium AD) than it is cludes the Bronze Age (c. 1500-500 BC), the Finn­
today. It is easy to imagine that the process of the ic southern boundary hardly moved. Pressure was
assimilation of the FU populations by the Ш speak­ undoubtedly felt in some areas from both east and
ers has been going on much earlier than even the west, but not so much from the south. From the
end of the first millennium AD. west came influences from the Scandinavian
(d) Some weight may also be given to the an­ Bronze culture (the centre of which was southern
thropological homogeneity of the populations of Scandinavia and Denmark) and eastern influences
the areas east of the Baltic Sea (see for example the were derived from the Textile Pottery cultures cen­
map of Coon 1939 compiled on the basis of the pig­ tred in the Volga-Oka region (Huurre 1995:93).
mentation of hair and eyes; the map is included in The language boundary had, however, already re­
Wiik 1995b). Unfortunately, a corresponding ge­ ached the Daugava (Vainajoki) during the Bronze
netic homogeneity has not yet been attested. Age, and during the Roman Iron Age the Latvian
4. 3500-2000 BC. Particularly in the latter part area expanded further (perhaps by 50-150 kilome­
of the У* millennium the Baltic Sea area was influ­ tres) to the north of the Daugava (cf. boundary
enced by the Corded-Ware/Battle-Axe culture. The -1000 on Map 1; Gimbutiene 1995:109 and Jaanits
language throughout most of this cultural area was et al 1982:206). This language shift left a powerful
an IE dialect, most probably Proto-Balto-Slavic or Finnic substratum in Latvian, as manifested, for in­
Proto-Baltic. Linguistically, the influence of these stance, by the shift of word stress onto the first syl­
cultures was twofold: to the south (in the area best lable. The area of initial stress today covers entire
suited to agriculture) the area of Proto-Baltic cul­ Latvia and, in addition, the northernmost dialect
tures widened, while in the more northerly regions areas of Lithuania.
Proto-Baltic influenced local languages, without, By the end of the Bronze Age at the latest, in both
however, changing them fundamentally into Baltic Baltic and Slavic areas, distinct western and eastern
languages. It is difficult to know exactly how far to tribal areas began to emerge. The culture of the
the north the Corded-Ware/Battle-Axe culture pus­ western Balts was that of Scratched Pottery, situ­
26
ated in the southern Baltic and western Belorussia, line); the Baltic language of the more easterly
while the eastern Baltic culture was that of the situated regions of this area had recently been
Dnieper-Dvina, centred on the upper reaches of the created as a result of the language shift U/
Dnieper. The Slavic cultures were divided into the FU>B.
Lausitz culture of the Vistula basin in present-day FU>B>S = the area of modem-day Slav (Russian),
Poland and the Milograd culture on the middle in which a language change FU>B occurred
Dnieper (cf. Dolukhanov 1986:11). Here we have initially, followed by a shift B>S (perhaps also
to assume that Proto-Slavic spread from the middle a shift FU>S, if we assume that the area was not
Dniepr to the Vistula basin (mixing there perhaps completely Balticised before the Slav Expan­
with a Finno-Ugric, Germanic, and/or Illyrian lan­ sion).
guage and developing into a western Slavic dia­ FU>S = the present-day Russian dialect area, in
lect). which the language shift FU>S occurred; the
6. 500 BC-1000 AD. Finnic was still spoken in FU language in question was Finnic in the
the northern part of Latvia in the middle of this pe­ north, and some other FU language (e.g., Mer-
riod or approximately in 400 AD: the language of ya) in the east.
Courland and north-west Latvia (the Salatsi region) FU = the area which remained a wholly Finnic
was Livonian (a Finnic language), and that of nort­ speaking area in 1000 AD.
hern Latvia (central Vidzeme) and northeastern
Latvia (Latgale) was a south Estonian dialect (see 7.1000-1500 AD. Both the lettification and es­
Jaanits et al 1982:166,206, 244 and diagram XTV). pecially russification process continued in the
The Slavic Expansion had still not begun. Soon af­ Finnic area, so that the Salatsi Livs to the east of the
ter 400 AD, during the period 400-1000 AD, the Gulf of Riga were latvianised and the Votic people
language boundary moved significantly: (1) with and the Chudes to the east of Lake Peipus were
the exception of a few Estonian language islands, russianised by 1300 AD (Laul 1984). These rela­
northern Latvia was Lettified/Latvianised (Tonis- tively late changes are shown as line +1500 on Map
son 1974), and (2) the Slavic Expansion caused the 1.
Baltic Finns and their nearest eastern linguistic 8. 1500-2000 AD. The Slavic Expansion con­
relatives (e.g the Meryas) to become Slavicised. tinued, the easternmost V5ru becoming Russian
The Slavicisation took place in the main because of and the Courland Livs almost completely latviani­
the southern traders’ and churchmen’s arrival in the sed. The language boundary settled approximately
towns of the area. Under their influence, the towns in its current position on the Latvian-Estonian and
became Slavicised, and the Slav language later Russian-Estonian borders (admittedly so that the
spread into surrounding rural areas. The phenom­ Setus or the inhabitants of the extreme south-east­
enon in question here is thus one of a shift in the ern comer of the Estonian linguistic area currently
language of the native people, rather than any large live on the Russian side of the border).
influx of Slavic-speaking immigrants to the area I suggest above that the southern boundary be­
(Ligi 1993). Exactly how far the Slavic Expansion tween the Finnic languages and the Slavic-Baltic
extended in these areas can be seen from Map 1, languages may have been far to the south, perhaps
boundary +1000 (the boundary line is based on even extending to the northern shore of the Black
Nestor’s Chronicle dating from 1054 AD). Sea, and that the boundary may have moved stage
It is worth noting that the Slavic Expansion did by stage ever northwards to its present-day loca­
not merely involve a language shift from Finno- tion. The movement of the boundary was about
Ugric to Slav, but also from Baltic to Slav: by 400 1.300 kilometres, and it took about 7.000 years to
AD the area which extends from modem Latvia complete it. Assuming the speed of the moving
and Lithuania to Moscow and Kiev was at least boundary was consistent throughout, it moved a lit­
partly Balticised (Gimbutiene 1994:109). When tle less than 20 km per century, or 200 metres per
the Slavic expansion reached these regions, at least year. During the time-span of one generation (tak­
part of the population already spoke a Baltic lan­ ing a generation to be 25 years) the boundary
guage. The situation with regard to the Baltic area, moved an average of about 4 km.
its languages and linguistic changes is summed up I assume the movement of the linguistic bound­
roughly in Map 2. In all there are five types of lin­ ary was not so much a question of a demie migra­
guistic areas on the map: tion from south to north; it was, rather, a result of a
gradual extension of a subsistence and cultural sys­
S = the Slavic dialect area before the beginning of tem. The model of explanation I have adopted com­
the Slavic Expansion. prises two parts: (1) At different periods some de­
В = the maximal Baltic dialect area (the broken gree of migration from south to north by the ”pio-
27
Map 2. Linguistic areas in the east Baltic region: Broken line = the maximal extent of the Baltic linguistic area. Contin­
uous lines = the starting area S of the Slavic Expansion and the extension of the Slavic Expansion about 1000
AD. Formulae FU>S and FU>B>S indicate language shifts.
neers” of a new cultural and subsistence system oc­ in language status was a reflection of the higher so­
curred. They merged with the original inhabitants cial and economic status of the southern people.
but their language nevertheless became the domi­ Language shift is essential to the model I have
nant one in the region - this, for example, is what employed: the Finno-Ugric peoples of Eastern Eu­
happened during the Slavic Expansion as inter­ rope (e.g. the Dnieper and Niemen areas) changed
preted by Priit Ligi, according to whom the Slav their Finno-Ugric language to Indo-European. As
language spread to the Finno-Ugric area through always in the events of this type, they did not leam
the towns, trade and church, and only later to the their new IE language correctly but made several
surrounding rural areas. (2) Another possibility is phonetic and syntactic errors in the new language.
that the linguistic boundary moved gradually thro­ As a result of their incomplete learning, a new
ugh the slow assimilation of neighbouring popula­ dialect, Proto-Balto-Slav of Proto-Indo-European
tions in such a way that in intermarriage the south­ emerged. Later this proto-language was split into
ern people assumed a dominant linguistic position two daughter-languages, Proto-Baltic and Proto­
more often than the northern ones. The difference Slav. Typical of substratal features is that they are
28
more evident the later the language shift has oc­ REFERENCES
curred - in this case the further north it has oc­ Ancltis, K. & Jansons, A. 1963. Vidzemes etniskas ves­
curred (Thomason-Kaufman 1988:240). Exactly tures jautajumi. Arheologija un etnografija 5.
this appears to be the case concerning the Baltic Boiko, K. 1993. Baltias juras somu feografiskie apela-
trvi un to relikti Latvijas vietvardos. Manuscript of a
and Slavic languages in the northern regions: the
dotoral dissertation. Riga.
Finnic substratum is clearly stronger in Latvian Coon, Carlton Stevens 1939. The races of Europe. New
than in Lithuanian, and stronger in the north Rus­ York.
sian dialects than in the southern ones. Dćcsy, Gyula 1967. Is there a Finnic Substratum in Rus­
sian? ORBIS, Bulletin international de Documenta­
If the above statements are true, the next question
tion linguistique. Louvain.
is: Did an equivalent development also take place Dolukhanov, Pavel 1979. Ecology and Economy in Neo­
in western Europe, and is the emergence of Proto­ lithic Eastern Europe. London.
Germanic, too, due to a substratal influence of the Dolukhanov, Pavel 1986. Natural environment and the
Holocene settlement pattern in the north-western part
Finno-Ugric populations? This FU>IE language
of the USSR. Fennoscandia archaeologica 111:3-16.
shift would have taken place in the tradiational area
Dolukhanov, Pavel 1989. Prehistoric ethnicity in the
of the emergence of Proto-Germanic in northern North-east of Europe - Comments on the paper by
Germany, Denmark, and south-western Sweden. I Milton Nunez. Fennoscandia archaeologica IV: 81­
maintain that this really is the case (cf. e.g. Wiik 84.
Gimbutas, Marija 1991. The Civilization of the Goddess.
1996). Accordingly, all the north Indo-European
San Francisco.
languages (Baltic, Slavic, and Germanic) are based Gimbutiene, Marija 1985. Balti aizvdsturiskajos laikos.
on the Proto-Indo-European spoken with a Finno- Riga.
Ugric substratum, which, again, implies (suppos­ Jaanits, L. & Laul, S. & Lóugas, V. & Tónisson, E. 1982.
Eesti esiajalugu. Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia
ing that no great migrations took place) that the
Ajaloo lnstituut. Tallinn.
populations of the three proto-languages in ques­ Janhunen, Juha 1981. On the Structure of Proto-Uralic.
tion originally (before the FU>IE language shift) Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 44:23-42.
spoke a Finno-Ugric (more precisely Uralic) lan­ Huurre, Matti 1995. 9000 vuotta Suomen esihistoriaa.
Viides, uudistettu painos. Helsinki.
guage.
Kiparsky, Valentin 1969. Gibt es ein finnougrischen
It seems to be a commonly accepted opinion Substrat im Slavischen? Annales academiae scien-
among historical linguists today that the north EE tiarumfennicae. Ser. B, Tom. 153,4:3-27.
languages in question originally emerged in the fol­ Kiinnap, Ago 1996. A Map in Disguise, Encyclopaedic
Spirit and Black Eve. The Newest Views in Uralistics.
lowing way: The aboriginal populations learned to
Linguistica Uralica 20.
speak the Ш protolanguage (or one of its dialects) Kiinnap, Ago 1997. Uralilaisten kielten jaljista indo-
and left a substratum of their own language to the eurooppalaisissa kielissa. Virittdjd 1: 79-83.
new EE dialect The traditional processes of the Laul, Silvia 1984. Kas lounaeesti murdealade kujune-
mine on archeoloogiliselt jhlgitav? Emakeele Seltsi
emergence of the Baltic (B), Slavic (S) and Ger­
Aastaraamat 30, Keelest ja rahvaluulest.
manic (G) protolanguages can be presented as the Laul, Silvia 1997. Lounaeestlaste ja Volga rahvaste iihis-
foEowing formulae: kultuurist. Keel ja Kirjandus 9/1997:577-584.
Lehr-Sptawin’ski, Tadeus 1946. O pochodzeniu i prao-
jcz'nie słowian. Wydawnictwo institutu zachodnie­
EEb + x>B
go. Poznan’.
IE, + у > S Ligi, Priit 1993. National Romanticism in Archaeology:
Ш + z > G The Paradigm of Slavonic Colonization in North-west
8
Russia. Fennoscandia archaeologica X: 31-39.
Nufiez, Milton G. 1987. A Model for the early settlement
In the formulae, EE,, and EE denote respec­
of Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica TV.
tively the ’’pre-Baltic”, ’’pre-Slavic , and ’’pre-Ger­ Рокоту, Julius 1936. Substrattheorie und Urheimat der
manic” dialects of the Ш proto-language; x, y, and Indogermanen. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen
z denote the unknown languages of the aboriginal Gesellschaft in Wien, Bd. LXVL69-91.
Raukko, Jamo & Ostman, Jan-Ola 1994. Pragmaattinen
populations.
nakokulma Itameren kielialueeseen. Publications of
My main linguistic contention in this article is
the Department of General Linguistics of the Univer­
that no unknown languages are needed. The x, y, sity of Helsinki No. 25.
and z of the traditional formulae can be replaced Rudzite, M. 1968. Somugriskie hidronlmi Latvijas PSR
by FUo, FUd, and Fu. the three symbols denoting teritorija. Latvieiu leksikas attisttba. Riga.
Thomason, S.G. & Kaufman, T. 1988. Language Con­
the proto-Finno-Ugric dialects spoken respectively
tact, Creolization and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley -
in the Niemen, Dniepr, and Elbe areas. Los Angeles - London.
Tonisson, Evald 1974. Die Gauja-Liven und ihre mate-
rielle Kultur. Tallinn.
Vanagas, A. 1981. Lietuviq hidronimij semantika. Lie-
tuviq onomastikos tyrinijimai. Lietuviq kalbotyros
klausimai XXI.
29
Veenker, Wolfgang 1967. Die Frage des fmnougrischen Zvelebil, Marek 1979. Subsistence and settlement in the
Substrats in der russischen Sprache. Uralic and Altaic northeastern Baltic. The Early Postglacial settlement
Series, Vol. 82. Indiana University, Bloomington. of northern Europe: 205-241. Edited by P Mellars.
Wiik, Kalevi 1993. Volgalaiskansojen ja -kielten synty- London.
kysymyksia. English Summary: On the Origins of the Zvelebil, Marek 1995a. Hunting, Gathering, or Husband­
Volgaic Peoples and Languages. Phonetics, Univer­ ry? Management of Foof Resources by the Late Me­
sity of Turku. Turku. solithic Communities of Temperate Europe. MASCA
Wiik, Kalevi 1995a. The Baltic Sea Prosodic Area Revi­ Research Papers in Science and Archaeology, Vol. 12
sited. Itamerensuomalainen kultluurialue - The Supplement: 79-104.
Fenno-Baltic Cultural Area. Castrenianumin toimit- Zvelebil, Marek 1995b. Neolithization in Eastern Eu­
teita 49:75-90. Edited by Seppo Suhonen. rope: A View from the Frontier. РогоёИо o razisko-
Wiik, Kalevi 1995b. ltdmerensuomalaisten kansojen ja vanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji
kielten synty kysymyksia. C. Antropologinen ja geneet- XXII.
tinen nakokulma. (Kasikirjoitus). Turun yliopisto, fo- Zvelebil, Marek 1995c. At the Interface of Archaeology,
netiikka. Joulukuul995. Linguistics and Genetics: Indo-European Dispersals
Wiik, Kalevi 1996. Póhja-Euroopa rahvaste ja keelte and the Agricultural Transition in Europe. Journal of
paritolu kUsimusi. Keel ja Kirjandus 9: 581-589. European Arhaeology. Vol. 3.1.
30