Kalevi Wiik HOW FAR to the SOUTH in EASTERN EUROPE DID

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 U gric 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 oflivelihood 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 southern!south-western Estonia and Latvia. In con was made up of the dialects of the Urallc 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 vonianlLivic) and their predecessors (Proto-Urallc, 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 (IE) 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 -55(0). Accordingly, about 7500 years Russian, Belorussian, and Ukrainian) at one time ago the Urallc 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 > IE). may imply that the Upper Palaeolithic Periglacial 1. 6000-5000 Be. During the 6th 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 =Be. 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, B = proto Baltic, S =proto-Slavic, and I =Indo-Iranian.

kers "expanded northward and eastwardfrom their Europe through the Balkans, while the latter had original homeland" and "they encountered speak used the eastern route via the Caucasus/eastern 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 or LBK), at its eastern extent shift UraliclFU > IE really has taken place in the (to the north-west of the Black Sea) linked to an area. other important IE farming culture, the Tripolye The IE 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 IE food the stock-breeders of the Black Sea - Caspian producing cultures, those of the Urallc-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 5th 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 UraliclFinno-U gric lan area to the Dniester-Bug and Dnieper-Donetz guage/dialect (cf. e.g. Zvelebill995c: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 5th 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 0 into an a of the IE proto-language (the western dialect of the (which later developed into an a-like vowel in the Tripolye-Cucuteni culture and the eastern dialect short series and into an a-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 4th millennium, ag and into an a-like vowel in the short series and into riculture continued to spread in eastern Europe an a-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 (ZvelebilI995:122) 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 a-like vowels was neutralized. A probable agriculture now spread to Northern Germany, Den cause for the neutralization was the labial or a-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) PalataIization 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 IE 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-Uthuanian 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 their 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 Be. 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 shiftFU>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 - Hiinde). ing the 4th 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: Po guage of the lower Dnieper area (referred to as the korny 1936, Decsy 1967, Veenker 1967, Kiparsky area of three languages/dialects above) may desig 1969, Thomason & Kaufman 1988, Raukko & nate the origin of the Indo-Iranian languages (cf. Ostman 1994 and Kiinnap 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 (AncItis & 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 (199Sc:SS): (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 bc or within the Baltic and Slavic languistic areas. Ex later with the adoption of fanning 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-WarelBoat-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 Be. 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 alI982:124). 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.lS~SOO 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 IE 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 300 millennium the Baltic Sea area was influ tres) to the north of the Daugava (cf. boundary enced by the Corded-WarelBattle-Axe culture. The -1000 on Map 1; Girnbutiene 1995:109 and Jaanits language throughout most of this cultural area was et al1982:206). 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-l000 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 alI982:166, 206, 244 and diagram XN). 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 Voru 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 demic 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 B = 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 learn 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 Ancitis, K. & Jansons, A. 1963. Vidzemes etniskas ves curred (Thomason-Kaufman 1988:240). Exactly tures jautajumi. ArheoloJija un etnogriijija 5. this appears to be the case concerning the Baltic Boiko, K. 1993. Baltias juras somu Jeogriijiskie apela tivi un to relikti Latvijas vietviirdos. 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. Decsy, Gyula 1967. Is there a Finnic Substratum in Rus If the above statements are true, the next question sian? ORBIS, Bulletin international de Documenta tion linguistique. Louvain. is: Did an equivalent development also take place Dolukhanov, Pave11979. Ecology and Economy in Neo in western Europe, and is the emergence of Proto lithic Eastern Europe. London. Germanic, too, due to a substrata! influence of the Dolukhanov, Pavel 1986. Natural environment and the Finno-Ugric populations? This FU>IE language Holocene settlement pattern in the north-western part of the USSR. Fennoscandia archaeologica ill: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 aizvesturiskajos laikos. on the Proto-Indo-European spoken with a Finno Riga. Ugric substratum, which, again, implies (suppos Jaanits, L. & Laul, S. & LOugas, V. & T5nisson, E. 1982. Eesti esiajalugu. Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia ing that no great migrations took place) that the Ajaloo Instituut. Tallinn. populations of the three proto-languages in ques Janhunen, Juha 1981. On the Structure of Proto-Urallc. tion originally (before the FU>IE language shift) Finnisch-ugrische Forschungen 44:23-42. spoke a Finno-Ugric (more precisely Uratic) 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 IE tiarumfennicae. Ser. B, Tom. 153,4:3-27. languages in question originally emerged in the fol Kfumap, Ago 1996. A Map in Disguise, Encyclopaedic Spirit and Black Eve. The Newest Views in Urallstics. lowing way: The aboriginal populations learned to Linguistica Uralica 20. speak the IE protolanguage (or one of its dialects) Kiinnap, Ago 1997. Uralilaisten kielten jiiljistii indo and left a substratum of their own language to the eurooppalaisissa kielissii. Virittaja 1: 79-83. new IE dialect. The traditional processes of the Laul, Silvia 1984. Kas 15unaeesti murdealade kujune emergence of the Baltic (B), Slavic (S) and Ger mine on archeoloogiliselt jiilgitav? Emakeele Seltsi Aastaraamat 30, Keelest ja rahvaluulest. manic (G) protolanguages can be presented as the Laul, Silvia 1997. LOunaeestlaste ja Volga rahvaste iihis following formulae: kultuurist. Keelja Kirjandus 9/1997:577-584. Lehr-Sptawin'ski, Tadeus 1946. 0 pochodzeniu i prao jcz'nie shMlian. Wydawnictwo institutu zachodnie IE;,+x>B go. Poznan'. IE, +y> S Ligi, Priit 1993. National Romanticism in Archaeology: lEg +z>G The Paradigm of Slavonic Colonization in North-west Russia. Fennoscandia archaeologica X: 31-39. In the formulae, IE" and IE denote respec Nunez, Milton G. 1987. A Model for the early settlement IE;" of Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica IV. tively the "pre-Baltic", "pre-Slavic", and "pre-Ger Pokorny, Julius 1936. Substrattheorie und Urheimat der manic" dialects of the IE proto-language; x, y, and Indogermanen. Mitteilungen der Anthropologischen z denote the unknown languages of the aboriginal GeseUschaft in Wien, Bd. LXVI:69-91. populations. Raukko, Jamo & Ostman, Jan-Ola 1994. Pragmaattinen niikokulma Itiimeren 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 hidronimi Latvijas PSR teritorijll. LatvieSu leksikas attIstiba. Riga. by FUn' FU , and Fu.. the three symbols denoting d 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. T5nisson, Evald 1974. Die Gauja-Liven und ihre mate rieUe Kultur. Tallinn. Vanagas, A. 1981. Lietuviq hidronimq semantika. Lie tuviq onomastikos tyrinijimai. Lietuviq kalbotyros klausimai XXI.

29 Veenker, Wolfgang 1967. Die Frage des finnougrischen ZvelebiI, Marek 1979. Subsistence and settlement in the Substrats in der russischen Sprache. Uralic andAltaic 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. kysymyksiii. English Summary: On the Origins of the ZvelebiI, 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. Itiimerensuomalainen kulttuurialue - 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. Poroeilo 0 razisko Wiik, Kalevi 1995b. Itiimerensuomalaisten kansojen ja vanju paleolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Sloveniji kielten syntykysymyksiii. C. Antropologinenja geneet XXII. tinen niikOkulma. (Kiisikirjoitus). Turun yliopisto, fo ZvelebiI, Marek 1995c. At the Interface of Archaeology, netiikka.loulukuul995. Linguistics and Genetics: Indo-European Dispersals Wiik, KaIevi 1996. P6hja-Euroopa rahvaste ja keelte and the Agricultural Transition in Europe. Journal of piiritolu kiisimusi. Keelja Kirjandus 9: 581-589. European Arhaeology. Vol. 3.1.