Because this subject is just too dense to work left to right, I'll offer a condensed version.
|"Pots are people you idiots!" -Kossinna|
1. Pots or people? Kossinna had the ridged view that archaeological culture = ethnicity. Then a younger generation of archaeologists lurched to the opposite extreme, discounting the validity of the ethnic question, but even the conceptual basis of a unifying 'culture' or its components, such as language. (More on Kossinna -Roberts, VanderLinden, page 51)
Every generation is rewarded with teenagers. At some point there is an acknowledgement that the older generation 'may have got a few things right'. Now that ancient DNA is demonstrating clear genetic boundaries and migratory change, "culture-history and ethnic interpretations are back on the dinner table" as Heyd states.
2. While Heyd acknowledges the genetic turnovers, he is also much more cautious than the authors of "Re-theorising mobility and the formation of culture and language among the Corded Ware Culture in Europe".
He points to a number of archaeological discrepancies and logical errors that the Nature crowd seem to be making. I've combined several things here to save space and time. Here's a few examples, parentheses are mine:
- No where is the Globular Amphora Culture considered in any genetic study. Yet, GAC has more direct contact and overlap with Yamnaya and influences from the North Black Sea are more direct. Heyd gives the example of the Mikhaylovka Culture of the Dneiper (also mentioned is the Maikop by Mallory and Adams. Also, see Woidich on GAC contact with the Northern Funnel-beaker Culture as one explanation for the formation of the Northern Single Grave Culture. Woidich, 2014)
- Other evidence of earlier intrusion - Baalberge round pit barrows
- Seemingly domestic horses are earlier than expected, Salzmünde Group, Central Europe.
- Suggests the possibility that Salzmünde-Eperstedt may have already been steppified, long before the CWC and BBC.
- There is still very limited sampling of vast regions. Not ready for simple conclusions.
- CWC is not descended from Yamnaya, not directly and not partly. The Kristensen authors (2017) admit they are using Yamnaya as a proxy, even though their own arrow maps (Nature) make this association quite clear. There are similarities between the two, but the two cultures are nearly contemporary which is problematic.
- Yamnaya expanded into familiar steppe ecozones. CWC expanded into familiar temperate forest ecozones. The two never overlap.
- The burials are more different than similar. And conversely, more similar burials from other cultures offer more convincing fits.
|Fig 4 (steppe sandals in pre-Beaker Iberia)|
3. The emergence of the Corded Ware Culture and the Bell Beaker Culture at roughly the same time is not coincidental. He seems to suggest the steppe component had already spread all over Europe as an incubating Neolithic elite (my interpretation) and then both cultures are born on a Neolithic substrate (again, my interpretation), one in Iberia and the other in Northern Europe.
Finally, it's important to emphasis the point Heyd reiterates. On the facts, there is no doubt. Eastern European Steppe influences clobbered Europe, all of it. The Corded Ware and Beaker Cultures were born of this upheaval. After all, that is the point of calling the paper "Kossinna's Smile".
The real question is the specifics of social change, which will continue to come into focus with a "new archaeology", as he calls it.