sign in sign up
<<
Home , Baltic languages, Battle Axe culture, Bell Beaker culture

Merlijn de Smit

Northern European Prehistory, from above

Riho Grünthal & Petri Kal- logical culture thought to represent lio (eds): A linguistic map of a network of armed traders around prehistoric Northern . 2000 BC. Ante Aikio (2004, this Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toi- volume) has convincingly demon- mituksia 266. Helsinki: Suoma- strated the presence of a substratum lais-Ugrilainen Seura 2012. of unknown origin in the Saami languages, signifying a language The present volume, which contains shift towards Saami in the far north a series of articles synthesizing lin- in comparatively recent times – per- guistic and archaeological results haps around halfway through the on the prehistory of North-eastern first millennium AD. Jaakko Häk- Europe and is based on a sympo- kinen (2009) has argued that the sium with the same title as the book Ugric languages should be grouped held in Rakvere, , in 2008, is with Samoyedic into a primary East the latest in a series of such works, Uralic branch, which means that for example Fogelberg 1999 and the old bifurcation between Proto- Carpelan, Parpola and Koskikallio Finno-Ugric and Proto-Samoyedic 2001. This latest addition is very wel- needs to be abandoned. In their come indeed, as the past decade has focus on detailed linguistic argu- seen great developments in the pre- mentation, shallow rather than very history of Uralic languages and peo- large time depths, and in some cases ples. Whereas throughout the 1980s the rehabilitation of old ideas such and 1990s, comparatively great time as Wiklund’s notion of a language depths for the presence of Uralic shift among the Saami, these devel- languages around the Baltic were opments represent what Janhunen in vogue, Petri Kallio (2006) has ar- (2001) dubs the ‘counterrevolution- gued for a much later dating for the ary’ paradigm in Uralistics coming Uralic proto-language. Arguments into maturity. Many of the articles such as the clear presence of Indo- in this volume base themselves spe- Iranian loans in Proto-Uralic mean cifically on these new results. that it significantly postdates Proto- Indo-European, and Proto-Uralic is In the Introduction (XI–XXVIII), connected by Kallio to the Sejma- Riho Grünthal sets out the scope of Turbino phenomenon, an archaeo- this volume, focusing as it does on

466 Northern European Prehistory, from above the area around the (XV) one-to-one correspondence be- and on the Early Metal and tween archaeological cultures and (XVIII); introduces the individual ethnolinguistic entities, and this is articles (XX–XXIII) and describes explicitly defended by Kallio in a some of the problems that haunt at- footnote (225). I find this acceptable, tempts to synthesize archaeological at least when the archaeological cul- and linguistic results, such as those tures are well-defined and based on that arise when trying to correlate a conglomeration of artefact types, archaeological cultures and linguis- technological features, etc. – sug- tic areas (XIV–XV) and the oppo- gesting social cohesion and thereby sition of models which are predi- the use of a specific language, or cated on such notions as continuity perhaps a lingua franca used for and diffusion versus those based intergroup communication in the on migration and discontinuity case of multilingual speech com- (XIX–XX). Grünthal covers a lot of munities. This said, in the face of the ground in the introductory chapter, critique of authors such as Saarikivi but the style of writing is sometimes and Lavento (2012), a more detailed overly concise and a bit gnomic. theoretical and methodological Thus, for example, the statement defence of such correlations would that “Our perception of time is, in have been welcome. principle, clockwise, whereas the Secondly, it seems to me that description of prehistoric processes many of the articles in the volume demands an anticlockwise perspec- tend towards the migrationist side tive” (XVIII) is not really explained of the spectrum, which seems to or expanded upon. me justified. After all, ancient his- On the problem of correlating tory is full of recorded migrations, archaeological cultures and eth- some of which (such as that of the nolinguistic entities, it should be from all the noted that, while criticism towards way to Asia Minor) seem a priori correlating ethnolinguistic and ar- almost implausible. Furthermore, chaeological entities is expressed in the problem of correlating archaeo- this volume by Charlotte Damm, logical cultures and ethnolinguistic and it has elsewhere has been sub- groups seems to be compounded jected to a detailed methodological in radically “continuist” theories critique by Saarikivi and Lavento such as Wiik’s (2002), wherein the (2012), many of the articles in this whole of European ethnolinguistic volume, particularly Asko Parpo- history after the Palaeolithic is cast la’s, are based on a very traditional in terms of interactions between

467 Merlijn de Smit the Uralic, Indo-European and namely human population genet- Vasconic groups, and this com- ics – is not represented in this vol- bined with an eccentric view on ume (though results from genetics linguistic change. A compromise are referred to by, for instance, position, allowing for periods of Kroonen (241)). This absence is long-term continuity and linguistic understandable: reconciling ar- convergence as well as for periods chaeological and linguistic results of migration and language spread, already presents formidable meth- has been proposed by Dixon (1997). odological and theoretical chal- The downside of Dixon’s view is lenges. With genetics, there is a fur- that periods of continuity and con- ther hindrance in that the genetic vergence are periods which are not mode of transmission is individual, within the reach of the comparative whereas that of language and cul- method: it would (as Dixon argues ture is social and collective. it does with Australian languages) simply fail to turn up anything use- The first two papers of the collec- ful. Periods when this equilibrium tion, Mika Lavento’s and Charlotte is ‘punctuated’, however, by rapidly Damm’s, deal with purely archaeo- spreading languages and language logical issues. Mika Lavento’s Cul- families, are periods where the tivation among hunter-gatherers comparative method and its meth- in – evidence of activated odologically inbuilt family tree connections? (1–40) deals with the model do apply. As Parpola notes in introduction of agriculture in Fin- this volume (127–128, 156), both the land. Noting that the introduc- Indo-European and the Uralic lan- tion of agriculture has often been guages spread quickly – breaking depicted as a revolution, allowing up swiftly into a number of daugh- for larger population sizes, greater ter branches rather than diversify- social stratification, and the emer- ing in a slow, binary manner over a gence of civilizations such as those very long period of time. This sug- of the (1), Laven- gests that for Indo-European and to deconstructs this view when Uralic at least, it is the punctuation applied to Finland: the introduc- phase, not the equilibrium phase, tion of agriculture in Finland is re- that is relevant, and hence a more garded as a piecemeal process, with or less migrationist view is appro- agriculture being incorporated for priate. a long time into a lifestyle based A third, emerging, scientific on hunting and fishing (31–33). discipline relevant to prehistory – The evidence Lavento deploys re-

468 Northern European Prehistory, from above lies on, for example, dwelling sites etc. (44–45). She believes that this and house type (5–6, 10–11), fossil neglects the fact that archaeologi- evidence of, for example, pollen cal cultures are not discrete enti- and cereals (7–9, 16–17), as well as ties: various features may overlap loanword evidence (18–19). Animal and spread without any concomi- husbandry possibly has its roots in tant ethnolinguistic diffusion (45). the (7), where- In this light, it is problematic that as the coastal Kiukainen culture some of the features traditionally shows clearer evidence for agricul- used in defining archaeological ture in terms of fossils and stone cultures, such as decoration pat- tools (7–9), and in the inland, the terns, are precisely the ones which later Age brings evidence may diffuse without any great need for crops (11, 17). However, there for communication and the trans- is a very long term of transition mission of knowledge (52). As an from the first introduction of agri- alternative, Damm suggests taking culture to agriculture becoming a up a chaîne opératoire approach, dominant way of life, with a long- in which the whole production term degradation of climate condi- process of an artefact type such tions from approx. 3000 BC being a as is taken into account possible reason, though hardly the (46). Some features of this produc- only one (31). tion process, such as the usage of e. g. asbestos in tempering, are In her From entities to in- dependent on the local availabil- teraction: replacing pots and peo- ity of resources (49–50). Others, ple with networks of transmission such as firing techniques, require (41–62), Charlotte Damm casts a direct transmission of knowledge sceptical look on the whole enter- between potters: unlike decorative prise of correlating archaeologi- patterns, they leave no overt traces cal cultures with ethnolinguistic which can be “read off” the pot and groups. Damm argues that such a then imitated (51–52). Features such correlation between pottery-based as these are thus more suggestive archaeological cultures and pre- of the existence of social networks sumed ethnolinguistic groups pre- of communication, and thereby a supposes a migrationist model, in common language and perhaps a which large-scale cultural change common ethnic identity, than su- is connected with the migration perficial features such as decorative of a new group of people, bring- patterns. Damm’s article pinpoints ing along their culture, language, an important intermediary step

469 Merlijn de Smit that must be made when correlat- of radical vowel changes common ing archaeological cultures and to all Saami languages, and during ethnolinguistic groups: it must be its later Proto-Saami stage. Where- made plausible that the archaeo- as Pre-Saami sports a number of logical culture in question repre- Proto-Germanic loanwords that sents a cohesive network of people are not shared with Finnic, sug- communicating with each other. gesting independent contacts, Pro- to-Baltic loans are largely shared Ante Aikio’s article, An essay on with Finnic, which Aikio suggests Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory indicates that Pre-Saami was never (63–117), is a synthesis on our cur- in direct contact with Baltic and rent knowledge on Saami prehis- that vocabulary of Baltic origin tory, notably involving the traces was transmitted through Finnic of a non-Uralic linguistic substrate (73–74). Proto-Scandinavian loans, in Saami. Traditionally, the Saami importantly, show regional differ- and have been re- ences in sound substitutions: ini- garded as forming a distinct node tial consonants such as f- are pre- in the Uralic language tree, but served better in the south and west recently, this has been regarded as of the Saami linguistic area. This increasingly doubtful. Aikio re- suggests that Proto-Saami was al- gards the question as insoluble: the ready diversifying into its daugh- lexical correspondences between ter languages during contacts with Finnic and Saami are an unreliable Proto-Scandinavian and, with Pro- guide due to the possibility of bor- to-Scandinavian sound changes rowing; there are some shared mor- datable in an absolute sense due to phological innovations, but little in the presence of , terms of shared phonology (68–69). suggests a terminus ante quem for One could add here shared syntac- the break-up of Proto-Saami: this tic features such as the grammati- must have happened before the cization of the Uralic ablative *-tA end of Proto-Scandinavian around as an object marker, or similarities 500–700 AD. (76–79.) The contrast in the periphrastic perfect tense of between these rather modest time Finnic and Saami. These features, depths argued for with sound lin- however, would be very much open guistic argumentation, and the to contact-induced change. prospects of various kinds of Pro- Aikio reviews the loanword lay- to-Saami spoken in the far north ers of Saami both during its Pre- since the late Palaeolithic advanced Saami stage, that is, before a series in some of the wilder proposals in

470 Northern European Prehistory, from above the 1990s, is very great and exem- most difficult to distinguish, and plifies the ‘counterrevolutionary’ least in the lexicon. When, further- thrust of the papers in this volume. more, the presumed substrate lan- The notion that, at some point, guage is not known, distinguishing part of the ancestors of the Saami substrate lexical items from inher- shifted from a non-Uralic lan- ited items which, through lexical guage (or a different Uralic lan- loss, have survived only in a geo- guage, such as Samoyed) to Saami graphically definable subgroup of is very old, and goes back to K. B. a becomes almost Wiklund’s notion of Protolappisch unsurmountable. as the non-Uralic language of these Aikio tackles this problem by ancestors (81). It is also, as Aikio setting stringent criteria for the mentions, very reasonable, as the identification of an unknown far north of Scandinavia has in- substrate in Saami: for example, deed been inhabited since the last a quantitative criterion (is there Ice Age, and Uralic languages can- enough vocabulary of unknown not have made their appearance origin?), a structural criterion until many millennia later. This (does vocabulary of unknown ori- goes, of course, for other language gin exhibit specific phonological groups as well. An unknown sub- or morphological features?), etc. strate in western Indo-European The result is a convincing pattern languages is later dealt with by explanation: possible substrate vo- Guus Kroonen in this volume, and cabulary does indeed show pho- there have long been attempts to nological results such as vowel connect Finnic lexical items such combinations not found in native as those denoting geographical lexical material and a high degree features and toponyms for large of semantic coherence (denotations bodies of water to a vanished sub- for native species of birds, etc.), and strate language as well (Rahkonen is very well represented in topony- 2013: 6–8). The problem has always my. (83–87.) Importantly, it appears been, of course, that demonstrat- that this substrate, dubbed Palaeo- ing the existence of a substrate is Laplandic, is contemporaneous already difficult enough when the with Proto-Scandinavian contacts presumed substrate language is (87). This would mean that an un- known: substrates tend to feature known language, perhaps belong- most largely in the structural do- ing to an family, mains of language, where internal was spoken in the far north past and contact-induced change are the Roman Iron Age. The signifi-

471 Merlijn de Smit cance of this result, both in and of Late Tripolye culture (4000–3400 itself and in the methodology ap- BC) rather than with the later Yam- plied by Aikio to attain it, is hard to naya Pit Grave culture (3300–2500 overstate. Interestingly, a large part BC) (125–127), which in turn allows of the vocabulary that was bor- him to identify the Battle Axe cul- rowed into Finnish from currently ture (3100–2000 BC) with a North- extinct Saami languages of central western Indo-European expansion, (Lakeland) Finland may ultimately which would otherwise run into belong to this substratum as well, chronological trouble (130). This leading Aikio to posit the existence north-western branch is ancestral of a Palaeo-Lakelandic language in to Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Italic addition to Palaeo-Laplandic (92). and Celtic: on the , Parpola argues that their earliest Asko Parpola’s article, Formation branching should be identified with of the Indo-European and Uralic the of the Low (Finno-Ugric) language families in Countries (2800–1400 BC), repre- the light of : Revised senting an adoption of maritime and integrated ‘total’ correlations culture allowing the early Celts to (119–184) is an attempt at a grand spread through the coastal areas of synthesis between archaeologi- Western Europe. The later Hallstatt cal cultures and Indo-European and La Tène cultures would repre- and Uralic linguistic stages. These sent an eastward expansion of the are presented in great detail: in Celts. (130.) the following, I will report on just As for the Uralic languages, some of the correlations advanced Parpola rejects the various versions by Parpola. Parpola adopts the of continuity theories advanced in common position that the earli- recent decades (148–149). The post- est stage of Proto-Indo-European glacial Komsa culture (10000– is to be identified with the horse- 6000 BC) is obviously of too great breeding Sredny Stog II culture of a time depth, and must represent the Pontic-Caspian steppes from some vanished Palaeo-European 4700–3400 BC, and that the an- language (143–144), though Par- cestral stage of the Anatolian lan- pola holds it possible that some of guages represents its first branch- the various archaeological waves ing (122–124). This Anatolian stage reaching Finland from 5000 to 1700 moved into Asia Minor through the BC may represent Proto-, Pre- or Balkans; left behind was Late PIE, Para-Uralic languages (145). How- which Parpola identifies with the ever, the correlation Parpola settles

472 Northern European Prehistory, from above upon is that between West Uralic cultures and reconstructed lin- and the Netted Ware culture of the guistic stages? Upper region from approx. 1900 BC (150), with Proto-Finnic Tiit Rein Viitso’s Early metallurgy represented in the Akozino-Mälar in language: The history of metal axe culture (800–500 BC) which names in Finnic (185–200) is an spread to Southwest Finland, but overview of the (mostly borrowed) also Åland and the Mälardalen re- origins of metal names in Finnic gion in Central (153) – an and other Western Uralic lan- interesting point which raises the guages, dealing with, for example, question of how old the Sweden- words for ‘’, which have a Ger- Finnic varieties really are. As for manic origin in Finnic and Saami the original expansion of Proto- but an Iranian origin in more cen- Uralic, Parpola notes that the vir- tral Uralic languages (187), and the tual identity between PU and its Finnic word for ‘iron’, rauta, for western sub-branch would suggest which a Germanic origin is restat- it happened fast, and, like Kal- ed and Slavic loan etymologies re- lio, associates it with the Sejma- jected (189) – words denoting iron Turbino network of warrior traders in the central Uralic languages (1900–1600 BC) (156). appear to be, again, Iranian loans Parpola’s synthesis thus nota- (189–190). Viitso rejects proposed bly bases itself on the relatively late Baltic origins for an etymologi- dating of Proto-Uralic advanced cally enigmatic term for ‘’ in in recent years. By fitting these Mari and Permic, *irγene, despite new results in a big picture of the the superficial similarities with a archaeo-linguistic prehistory of term for ‘copper’ in Old Prussian Europe, it is of great importance. (192). On the origin of the widely This said, a large number of very attested Uralic term for copper detailed correlations are made in *wäśkä, Viitso advances the inter- short succession (the depiction esting theory that the final element of the Celtic branch, referred to *-kä which is present in Western above, takes up a bit over half a Uralic but absent elsewhere, is a page), which leaves the synthesis withered remnant of *-kive ‘stone’. as a whole open to criticism of the The first element would then be an kind advanced by Saarikivi and Indo-European or Indo-Iranian Lavento (2012): how sure can we borrowing *vaśa ‘bronze’, original- really be of all these correlations ly rather ‘axe’. (195.) According to between successive archaeological Viitso, the absence of *kive- ‘stone’

473 Merlijn de Smit in Saami would suggest that the of the features Pajusalu deals with Saami cognate is a borrowing from have contact-induced origins, such Finnic. I am not sure this supposi- as the palatalization of consonants tion is really necessary. It is pos- in (particularly South) Estonian sible for words to survive only in and Livonian with Baltic and Slavic compounds, for example the first influence (210–211), and the pres- element of English werewolf, Dutch ence of affricates, which are an ar- weerwolf, though here, of course, chaism in S. Estonian but a recent were for ‘man’ is attested in older development in Votic (*k- > č- for literary stages of Germanic. For front vowels): both these reten- Saami, the presence of *kive- in tions and innovations may have other compounds would, of course, been conditioned by influence from strengthen this possibility. Baltic and Slavic (211–212). Interest- ingly, Pajusalu argues that for some In his paper Phonological innova- of the South Finnic phonological tions of the Southern Finnic lan- isoglosses, influence from extinct guages (201–224), Karl Paju­salu West Uralic languages such as deals with the phonological fea- Merya and Muroma should also be tures that characterize the South taken into consideration; notably, Finnic languages Livonian, North there are some features shared by and South Estonian, and Votic. South Finnic and Mordvin which These are, for example, the develop- distinguish South Finnic from ment of long geminates in Livonian North Finnic (219–220). and Estonian (204), tonal distinc- tions in the same pair of languages, Petri Kallio’s article The Prehis- which Pajusalu argues might be toric Germanic Loanword Strata in related to Scandinavian influence Finnic (225–238) is a state-of-the- (205–206), foot isochrony – that is, art report on the loanword layer in the phenomenon where the longer question. As Kallio reports, there the first syllable, the shorter the sec- were already contacts between ond – in Estonian, Livonian, and to some Pre-Finnic language and the some extent in Votic (206–207), and north-western Indo-European lan- grade alternation, which, despite guage associated with the Corded its absence in Livonian (as well as Ware/Battle Axe culture, as testi- in Veps), Pajusalu argues to have a fied by such archaic Indo-European Proto-Finnic origin. Notably, there loans such as lehti ‘leaf’ (227). Kal- are traces of grade alternation in lio considers it possible that these Salats Livonian (207–208). Some loans were transmitted indirectly

474 Northern European Prehistory, from above through some Uralic or Para-Uralic from the Western Indo-European language of the East Baltic, as the languages. This substratum is iden- linguistic ancestor of Finnic was tified on the basis of some appar- still located in the Volga area at that ently non-IE phonological features, time (228). More intense contacts such as the appearance of an unex- occurred in the Baltic between an plained alternation between a- and early Palaeo-Germanic language, ø- in anlaut (239–241). According to still retaining an archaic ā which Kroonen, the origin of the substra- shifted to ō in Proto-Germanic, tum lies in the language of Neolith- and an ancestral stage common ic Europe prior to the arrival of the to Finnic and Saami during the Indo-Europeans. Europe Nordic (1800–500 BC) is argued to have been linguistically (229). For Proto-Germanic loan- and culturally homogenous (241). words proper, Kallio distinguishes Whereas the supposition of intru- a Middle Proto-Finnic preced- sive Indo-Europeans seems sound ing Late Proto-Finnic, as the lat- enough – as Kroonen mentions, ter (400–800 AD on the basis of the genetic differences between shared Christian terminology) is European Neolithic farmers and not contemporary with the former Modern Europeans suggests mi- (500–0 BC) (230). These contacts gration rather than mere cultural/ place both Proto-Germanic and linguistic diffusion – that of a lin- Proto-Finnic in Scandinavia and guistically homogenous Neolithic the Baltics during the Bronze Age. Europe seems very risky indeed. It Notably, onomastic material of would be virtually incredible for Germanic origin from north of the such a vast area to have remained Gulf of Finland indicates that these linguistically homogenous in the contacts took place on both sides of absence of roads, and, for most of that Gulf (234). its history, wheeled vehicles, until the arrival of the Indo-Europeans In his article Non Indo-European – and features such as a-prefigation root nouns in Germanic: evidence in are widespread in Celtic, Germanic support of the Agricultural Substrate and Latin (241). One could even ar- Hypothesis (239–260), which is one gue that the wide spread of a-pre- of two linguistic articles in the vol- figation in Western Indo-European ume without a Uralic connection speaks against a common substrate (Willem Vermeer’s being the other), origin, rather than for it. Guus Kroonen presents a number The lexical items Kroonen ex- of possible substrate lexical items amines are so-called root nouns:

475 Merlijn de Smit nouns which have a root and an case. For the first, a possible w- pre- ending, but no intervening suffix. fix occurs with another etymon, This type of nouns is widespread namely that for ‘boar’: eofor in Old in languages such as Greek, Latin English, Dutch ever-zwijn, but Lat- and but archaic and re- vian vepris. Furthermore, Kroonen stricted in Germanic, which makes adds supporting examples for al- it an appropriate place to look for ternation between the labial con- substrate vocabulary (242). The sonant cluster mb and dental nd. items under examination are *arwīt This makes the suggestion for the ‘pea’ and cognates in Greek, Latin, Germanic and Balto-Slavic forms possibly Celtic; *gait- ‘goat’ and its to have its roots in a common sub- single Latin cognate; *hnit- ‘nit’ strate item convincing, although and its cognates in European IE we are dealing with etymology on languages; *hnut- ‘nut’ and its cog- the edge of a knife here! nates in Western IE languages; the Germanic item *edis, dīsi ‘lady’; Santeri Junttila, in The prehistoric and *wisund- ‘bison’ (242–252). The context of the oldest contacts be- latter is especially interesting: it is tween Baltic and Finnic languages connected with Balto-Slavic items (261–296) provides a detailed pres- such as wissambs in Old Prussian, entation of Baltic loanwords in stumbras in Lithuanian and sumbrs Finnic. As for the archaeological in Latvian. Kroonen reconstructs context of those loans, Junttila con- a form *tsombr underlying the trasts the traditional migration the- Balto-Slavic forms, but *widzombr ory, according to which the Finnic for Old Prussian, and *witsond for languages would have arrived to Germanic, and argues these are the Baltic in the Iron Age, with the shared substrate items sporting a recently popular continuity theo- prefix wi-. This seems speculative, ry which places Uralic languages as the only thing the three recon- around the Baltic with the Comb structed items have in common Ceramic culture (4000–2000 BC), are the dental consonant cluster which would come into contact ts/dz, and a notion that Kroonen with an intrusive Battle Axe cul- rejects, namely that the Old Prus- ture (261–263). Junttila argues for a sian is a contamination between middle way in the shape of Bronze Germanic and Baltic words for Age contacts between Finnic and ‘bison’ does strongly suggest itself. Baltic, a model which he reconciles Kroonen, however, adduces two with Kallio’s proposal that the ex- circumstances which support his pansion of Uralic languages is to be

476 Northern European Prehistory, from above identified with the Sejma-Turbino during a Pre-Mordvinic stage that phenomenon (264–265). Accord- preceded Proto-Mordvinic and ing to Junttila, Baltic loanwords succeeded the final linguistic stages in Saami not represented in Finnic that were shared with other West- are very few, and lexical loss on the ern Uralic languages, such as Finn- Finnic side may well have occurred ic (299–305). There do not appear to here (266), which is compatible be any Baltic borrowings in Mari, with Aikio’s view that Baltic loan- and of those in Mordvin, about half words in Saami were transmitted of the borrowings are not shared at indirectly through Finnic. Finally, all with Finnic. Of those which do Junttila provides a detailed treat- occur on the Finnic side, most show ment of 73 proposed Baltic ety- discrepancies in phonology, etc., mologies grouped according to se- which suggests separate borrowing mantics (e. g. hunting, fishing, etc.) (310–311). The individual loanword (268–). The etymologies themselves etymologies are then presented in are classified as ‘relatively clear’, great detail (312–). ‘dubious’ and ‘erroneous’. Both of the preceding articles on Riho Grünthal likewise deals with Baltic loanwords are complete, Baltic loanwords, but this time up-to-date reports on the current in Mordvin (Baltic loanwords in state of research. The collection as Mordvin, 297–343). There are more a whole, however, would have ben- than thirty such loanwords: they efited from a treatment of possible testify of contacts that were both syntactic influence from the Baltic less intensive than those between languages as well, such as the us- Baltic and Finnic, and separate: the age of the partitive case as an ob- loanwords are, mostly, not shared ject marker (Larsson 1983). The is- with Finnic (297). Rejecting the hy- sue of possible Baltic influence on pothesis that these loanwords were argument case-marking in Finnic transferred eastwards from Finnic and Saami presents some problems through such extinct, intermediary which would have been interesting languages such as Merya, Muroma, to see dealt with in light of some etc., Grünthal argues that contacts of the hypotheses advanced here happened far to the east, at the east- – such as that of lack of direct bor- ern rim of the prehistorical spread rowing between Baltic and Proto- of , that is, in the Saami. Notably, Saami shares with area of the Oka river, and that they Finnic the usage of the original happened very early, beginning *-tA ablative as an object marker,

477 Merlijn de Smit though not partiality-based object accessible due to the fact that a sec- marking itself. This is problematic ond sound change, Second Regres- if we hold to both the plausible view sive Palatalization, is alluded to, but that this usage was conditioned by not defined. Baltic influence and the plausible view that Baltic and Proto-Saami As a whole, the collection repre- were not in direct contact. sents up-to-date views on the syn- thesis of archaeological and lin- The final paper in the collection, guistic evidence in the prehistory Willem Vermeer’s Why Baba-Yaga? of the North, exemplified by Ai- Substratal phonetics and restoration kio’s and Parpola’s papers, detailed of velars subject to the Progressive research on loanword evidence Palatalization in Russian/Belorus- and substratal lexicon (Viitso’s, sian and adjacent areas (appr. 600– Kallio’s, Junttila’s, Grünthal’s and 900 CE) (345–370) is the second one Kroonen’s papers) and interesting not directly related to Uralic. Its case studies in archaeology and starting point is the way in which historical phonology (Lavento’s, words such as Baba-Yaga, the witch Damm’s, Pajusalu’s and Vermeer’s from fairy tales, exemplify what papers). For people who wish to appears to be a reversal of progres- refresh or update their knowledge sive palatalization, e. g. Polish jędza on the linguistic and archaeologi- ‘witch’, which is a common Slavic cal prehistory of , innovation. Unmodified velars, on this volume, which takes into ac- the other hand, are restricted to the count some of the most important Russian/Belorussian dialect area research results of the last decade, (345). Progressive palatalization in is indispensable. Two points of common Slavic and the controver- criticism remain: the first minor, sies surrounding it are described the other, perhaps, medium-sized. in great detail (347–350), as are, Both deal with what is missing subsequently, the restructuring of from the collection as a whole rath- paradigms which may involve the er than with the individual articles extension of both palatals and un- (which are, uniformly, sound). The modified velars (350–353) and sub- first is that a consideration of struc- sequent palatalizations (355–360). tural contacts between Baltic and For non-Slavicists, however, this Finnic/Saami, and perhaps also be- description (and the explanation of tween Germanic and Finnic/Saami, the presence of unmodified velars would have been very welcome as, in Russian/Belorussian) is not very as mentioned before, some of the

478 Northern European Prehistory, from above

lologique de Helsinki 63. Helsinki: hypotheses regarding those con- Société Néophilologique. 5–34. tacts made in the research literature Carpelan, C., A. Parpola & P. Koski- appear to conflict with the place kallio (eds) 2001: Early contacts and date of borrowing contacts as between Uralic and Indo-European: reported in the articles here. Par- Linguistic and archaeological con- siderations. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen ticularly, the development of the Seu­ran Toimituksia 242. Helsinki: Uralic ablative *-tA into an object Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura. marker in Finnic and Saami, and Dixon, R. M. W. 1997: The rise and fall the possibility of Indo-European of languages. Cambridge: Cam- and specifically Baltic influence on bridge University Press. Fogelberg, P. (ed.) 1999: Pohjan poluil- this development, presents chrono- la. Suomalaisten juuret nykytutki- logical problems. The second is that muksen mukaan. Helsinki: Societas the kinds of correlations between Scientiarium Fennica. archaeological cultures and ethno- Häkkinen, . 2009: Kantauralin ajoitus ja paikannus: perustelut puntaris- linguistic groups most prominent sa. – Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran in Parpola’s article but present in Aikakauskirja 92: 9–56. others as well, are in need of a theo- Janhunen, J. 2001: On the paradigms retical and methodological defence of Uralic comparative studies. – against criticism forwarded by Finnisch-Ugrische Forschungen 56: 29–41. Saarikivi and Lavento (2012) as well Kallio, P. 2006: Suomen kantakielten as, in this volume, Damm. I should absoluuttista kronologiaa. – Virittä- add that I believe such a defense to jä: 2–25. be possible: the results presented in Larsson, L.-G. 1983: Studien zum Par- this volume represent (in contrast titivgebrauch in den ostseefinnischen Sprachen. Uppsala. to some of the heated discussions Rahkonen, P. 2013: Suomen etymolo- on prehistory in the 90s and early gisesti läpinäkymätöntä vesistönni- 00s) solid progress in the field. mistöä. – Virittäjä: 5–43. Saarikivi, J. & M. Lavento 2012: Lin- guistics and archaeology. A critical Merlijn de Smit view of an interdisciplinary ap- proach with reference to the pre- Literature history of Northern Scandinavia. – C. Damm & J. Saarikivi (eds): Aikio, A. 2004: An essay on substrate Networks, interaction and emerging studies and the origin of Saami. – identities in Fennoscandia and be- I. Hyvärinen, P. Kallio & J. Korho- yond. Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran nen (eds): Etymologie, Entlehnungen Toimituksia 265. Helsinki: Suoma- und Entwicklungen. Festschrift für lais-Ugrilainen Seura. 177–216. Jorma Koivulehto zum 70. Geburts- Wiik, K. 2002: Eurooppalaisten juuret. tag. Mémoires de la Société Néophi- Jyväskylä: Atena.

479