Many of the bold assertions made in "Re-theorising mobility and the formation of culture and language among the Corded Ware Culture in Europe" are going to be broadly close to truth. But it will be controversial due to the 'matter of fact' spirit of the piece and the name recognition of the authors. Academically, it is tantamount to throwing down the gauntlet.
In a way, the hysteria generated in archaeological and linguistic circles as a result of this paper and the two 2015 papers will be good for the genetics community. Controversy will spawn rebuttals built on additional evidences, which will eventually illuminate more dark areas of history.
1. The Kristiansen authors refer to the so-far tested Yamnaya as a "best known proxy" for incoming populations into Europe. Given genetic, economic and cultural similarities between these cultures, they believe a donor ancestor of CWC lived somewhere close to the regions tested thus far.
2. Crisis in the European Neolithic? New diseases? Was Europe weakened in such a way that it became a magnet for immigration?
3. A cultural and economic framework of Yamnaya is given which explains the unique similarities it has with the highly mobile Corded Ware.
4. Corded Ware males married outsider women; abduction is singled out as a contributing factor to male based exogamy. (I'm guessing abduction becomes more common when doweries or bride price become excessive as is often the case in primative societies. I'm not sure the economics of abduction make it a good fit for the observed exogamy.)
|Nordic Bronze Age|
5. They suggest that pre-proto-Germanic developed out of a late Funnelbeaker presence in Western Jutland and the Danish Islands. (No idea whatsoever)