The paper relies on several assertions about languages and classical texts which are highly questionable, but treated somewhat misleadingly as if they represent an academic consensus. For example, Jordanes in the 6th century (not named, but relied upon) indicated himself that he preferred classical written sources, and philogists today are critical of the old idea that he used oral traditions for his ideas about Scandinavia. His interest in speculating and putting together fantastic stories, including Bible-derived ideas about barbarians coming from islands in the north is also recognized. Furthermore, later Scandinavian migration stories all appear to be derived from his, whereas here they are treated here as separate traditions. See for example the detailed study by Arne Søby Christensen and the 1980s studies by Peter Heather. Concerning languages, the idea that Germanic already existed in Scandinavia before the Jastorf culture is an old tradition but by no means a field consensus! In reality there is no real evidence for this, and scholars like Kulikowski argue quite reasonably that such ideas would not exist without Jordanes. Normally by the way it is Southern Scandinavia which was traditionally associated with the pre-Goths, not Eastern Scandinavia. I find it worrying that the article is overall written in a confused and opaque way which seems to hide the normal interpretations of the relevant non-genetic evidence. For example, how can the article disprove a continental origin to Germanic if it does not even mention that this is the normal scholarly proposal? The article should at least mention the most widely held ideas, and ideally it should also test them. Perhaps connected to this the language used is sometimes so over-complicated and unnatural that it is ambiguous and arguably meaningless.