In denying Ptolemy's southern Finnoi you are also denying Tacitus' Fenni. I can't follow you there.
****GK: I don't deny Tacitus' Fenni at all. Nor Ptolemy's northern Finnoi.****
Also I don't understand why you want to apply Schütte's doublet reduction here if you don't believe in the results of applying it elsewhere?
****GK: I don't understand this point. What I had doubts about is whether Schutte's Vistula sequence= Baltic sequence held. It would have involved finding "Finnoi" on the Baltic right after "Gutones" on the Venedicus Bay. Of course if one emended further and placed the Finnoi there AFTER the Venedi it might work. But that would be too many emendations. One might as well rewrite the text completely (:=))). My point was simply that the difficulties with Finns on the Vistula (in Ptolemy) could be solved more easily since Schutte himself admitted (and many others) that there were plural instances of such singular misplacements in Ptolemy. In other words in the standard Ptolemy text, leave the sequence Venedi--Gutones--Phrungudiones etc. and just take out these misplaced "Finni". They would be OK anywhere beyond the Venedi (even on the Baltic). Or beyond the area of the Baltic hydronyms where the Dyakovo culture begins.*****
BTW, since the group of Magyar invaders seem to have been polyglot, and since they untypically for a FU group were cattle nomads, one has to ask oneself why the FU language Hungarian came out on top?
****GK: Numbers probably. A similar issue as to why Turkic replaced Iranic in the steppes. Or why Cumanic rather than Mongol became the language of the "Tartars" of the West.****