Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 85, 2019, pp. 115–129 © The Prehistoric Society. This is an Open Access
article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
doi:10.1017/ppr.2019.4 First published online 10 June 2019
Re-integrating Archaeology: A Contribution to aDNA
Studies and the Migration Discourse on the
3rd Millennium BC in Europe
By MARTIN FURHOLT1
Since aDNA research suggested a marked gene influx from Eastern into Central Europe in the 3rd millennium
BC
, outdated, simplistic narratives of massive migrations of closed populations have re-appeared in archaeolog-
ical discussions. A more sophisticated model of migration from the steppes was proposed recently by Kristiansen
et al. As a reaction to that proposal, this paper aims to contribute to this ongoing debate by refining the latter
model, better integrating archaeological data and anthropological knowledge. It is argued that a polythetic clas-
sification of the archaeological material in Central Europe in the 3rd millennium reveals the presence of a new
complex of single grave burial rituals which transcends the traditional culture labels. Genetic steppe ancestry is
mainly connected to this new kind of burials, rather than to Corded Ware or Bell Beaker materials. Here it is
argued that a polythetic view on the archaeological record suggests more complicated histories of migration,
population mixtures and interaction than assumed by earlier models, and ways to better integrate detailed stud-
ies of archaeological materials with a deeper exploration of anthropological models of mobility and social group
composition and the molecular biological data are explored.
Keywords: aDNA, migration, single grave burials, mobility, Corded Ware, Bell Beakers
The last few years have seen a resurgence of migration
as an explanatory model for cultural change in prehis-
tory, sparked by recent aDNA research, which showed
several marked changes in the European gene-pool,
among others in the 3rd millennium bc (Brandt et al.
2013; Haak et al. 2015; Allentoft et al. 2015; Olalde
et al. 2018). However, the aDNA data have not so far
been connected to the archaeological record in a man-
ner that would reflect the conceptual discussions and
the state of the art of the 21st century (eg, Jones 1996;
Shennan 2000; Burmeister & Müller-Scheeßel 2006;
Roberts & Vander Linden 2011). Instead, old models
derived from the early 20th century which, although
utterly deconstructed on a theoretical level, are still
popular in much of archaeological daily practice, were
picked, and thus revitalised to make sense of the data.
These old models treat archaeological units of classifi-
cation as representing distinct and closed groups of
people and biological populations (as criticised by
Müller 2013; Hofmann 2015; Vander Linden 2016;
Ion 2017; Furholt 2018a).
In line with the traditional concepts of Gustaf
Kossinna (1919) and Gordon Childe (1929) these
units, called ‘archaeological cultures’are seen as dis-
tinct, brick-like entities of material culture, classified
in a monothetic way, that is, defined by traits that
are supposed to be present in all individuals of a unit.
David Clarke suggested the alternative of a polythetic
classification (Clarke 1968), in which the different
traits can be unevenly and incoherently distributed
among different units. A unit would thus be defined
by a frequent but variable co-occurrence of a set of
traits present in its individuals, not excluding their
occurrence in other units. Polythetic classification is
a much more realistic method because, when it comes
1Department of Archaeology, Conservation and History,
University of Oslo, P.O Box 1019, Blindern, N-0315
Oslo, Norway. Email: martin.furholt@iakh.uio.no
115
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
to social phenomena, real monothetic units almost
never exist (Eggert et al. 2012, 190). For example, a
pottery style with a certain regional distribution might
be –and in reality mostly is –connected to more than
one tradition in tool production, house building or
burial ritual (Furholt 2008b; 2009). However, while
Clarke’s criticism was acknowledged (eg, Lüning
1972; Müller 2001), the mainstream of prehistoric
archaeologists working in Europe, with only a few
notable exceptions (Müller 2001; Vander Linden
2006; Furholt 2008b; 2009), still largely stick to units
of classification that are conceptualised as monothetic
blocks, even though they are –in most cases –only
pseudo-monothetic in nature (Furholt 2012). Most
colleagues will argue that monothetic units are just
easier to handle (eg, Lüning 1972), while a polythetic
classification creates fuzzy units.
However, we run into serious problems when we lose
sight of the flawed nature of this practice, as it has hap-
pened in the recent boom of aDNA work. Here, ‘the
Yamnaya’and ‘theCordedWare’(Haak et al. 2015;
Reich 2018) are repeatedlyreferred to as distinct groups
of people, assuming a monothetic structure regarding
the burial rituals, pottery styles, subsistence strategies,
and social identities and biological proximity. This
has led to a stark mis-conceptualisation of the migration
processes inferred from the new aDNA data.
The polythetic classification better represents the fact
that group membership is multi-dimensional and might
have, in itself, a polythetic structure, that people might
relate to a whole set of different social collectives
(Hansen 2003), or communities of practice (Wenger
1998). For example, the realm of burial rituals might
be connected to a different social collective than the
realm of other activities, including the practice of pot-
tery manufacture. These collectives, or communities
of practice, do not have to be congruent, a fact that is
obscured when using a monothetic classification model.
What is more, even when one uses a polythetic
classification to account for the multi-dimensionality
of social identities, or social group affiliations, the
anthropological record suggests that people have the
possibility to change their group affiliations, create
new or join already existing social groups (eg,
Cameron 2013). Such a fluidity of social groups can
show a wide range from more to less open and inter-
mixed settings (eg, Hillier & Hansen 1984;
Schachner 2012) but it is a widespread phenomenon
in state-less societies, and archaeological and scientific
data have pointed to several Neolithic local
communities being composed of individuals with
diverse social backgrounds (that is, areas of origin,
mobility patterns, diets, see Bentley 2007; Zvelebil &
Pettitt 2013; Brandt et al. 2014;Hachem&Hamon
2014). This is a cautionary tale for the association
of archaeological units –be they polythetically of
monothetically classified –with specific, clearly circum-
scribed groups of people.
Nevertheless, in this paper I want to point out the
heuristic advantages of a polythetic perspective on the
archaeological material of the 3rd millennium
BC
.
I will argue that this will provide a more differentiated
picture which is better suited to capture the dynamics of
social processes connected to human mobility and
social group composition. This perspective results in
the definition of a new complex of burial rituals emerg-
ing in the 3rd millennium
BC
, which is connected to
different styles of material culture and shows the stron-
gest affinity to individuals with genetic steppe ancestry.
This is seen as a contribution to the ongoing debate
about migration narratives, which has evolved around
the aDNA data. I will discuss the model proposed
by Kristiansen et al. (2017) and propose modifications
based on the polythetic perspective advocated here.
A POLYTHETIC CLASSIFICATION OF 3RD MILLENNIUM
EUROPEAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS
To rectify several misconceptions lying at the basis of the
aDNA based migration narrative, a polythetic approach
to the connection between material culture styles (mainly
pottery, weapons, and tools), and burial forms dramati-
cally changes the picture. The prevailing monothetic
culture classification suggests that the two main units,
the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker ‘Cultures’, have their
own distinct burial rituals (Fischer 1956). Textbook
characterisations (eg, Behrens 1973;Strahm2010)sug-
gest that ‘the Corded Ware burial ritual’is basically
single burials under burial mounds with west–east orien-
tation of crouched burials and a gender-based
differentiation (males: right side, head to the west,
females: left side, head to the east). Male graves are asso-
ciated with weapons (battle-axes and axes).
By contrast, Bell Beaker burials are –so the text-
book narrative continues –single burials in crouched
positions with a gender differentiation, but oriented
north–south, (females: right side, males: left side).
Male graves are associated with weapons (daggers,
arrowheads, and wristguards). Told like this, it seems
as if those two ‘cultures’really are characterised by
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
116
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
diametrically opposed, different burial forms. This
view, however, overlooks a large bundle of shared
characteristics: single burials, strict orientation rules
and gender differentiation, the central role of weapons
in male graves and drinking vessels (beakers) in gen-
eral. Only in the details do the two ‘groups’diverge,
namely the choice of orientation and the choice
on which side to rest the dead according to their
gender. Even more importantly, the textbook character-
isation is a stark simplification of the actual empirical
data, which are much more variable. The burial customs
described for the Bell Beakers only hold true in Central
Europe, the Netherlands, and the British Isles (excluding
Ireland). Even here orientation rules vary (eg, no stand-
ardised orientation in the north of the British Isles and
the Netherlands, burial mounds are not present in all
regions: Vander Linden 2006, 160f). On the Iberian
Peninsula, in Italy, the largest parts of France, and
Ireland, Bell Beaker materials are mostly found in other
kinds of grave types (eg, megalithic graves, in collective
graves, and cave burials). In Denmark, Bell Beakers are
mainly found in settlements (Sarauw 2007), while in
the Hungarian Csepel Group, cremation burials are
frequent (Vander Linden 2006, 61).
Burials connected to Corded Ware materials are also
much more variable then the textbook version suggests
(Dornheim et al. 2005; Furholt 2014). In some regions
the pattern described is prevalent (Jutland, most of
Germany, Austria, Bohemia, parts of southern
Poland). However, in other regions we find regular
deviations from the textbook pattern. Gender differen-
tiation is missing (parts of central and southern
Germany, the Baltic states), reversed (southern
Sweden), orientation is variable (the Netherlands), or
north–south orientation prevails (southern Poland,
Moravia, the Russian Fatyanovo group). In some
regions Corded Ware materials are found often, or
even dominantly, in megalithic graves (Danish Isles,
north-east Germany). Even in those regions, in which
the textbook division between Corded Ware and Bell
Beaker associated burial rituals apply overall, it is pos-
sible to point to considerable overlaps and ‘mixture’
(see, for instance, Großmann 2016).
This is a situation much better characterised by
applying a polythetic classification. In many regions
burials connected with Corded Ware look very similar
to the textbook Bell Beaker burials, with a domi-
nant north–south instead of west–east orientation, or
with a reversed gender-specific body placement. In
addition, many Early Bronze Age ‘cultures’directly
following Corded Ware and Bell Beakers, such as
the Únětice, Mierzanowice, or Nitra in Central
Europe, the Nordic ‘Late Neolithic’and Early
Bronze Age in southern Scandinavia, or Wessex have
also very similar burial rituals. All the burials con-
nected to these different ‘archaeological cultures’are
basically variations over a common theme: highlight-
ing the gendered individual; the association of
weapons with males; the burial in a flexed position
on their side; in or under kurgan-like burial mounds;
and distinct rules of orientation and body placement.
Drinking vessels are also a prominent grave good, be
they Corded Beakers, Bell Beakers, or Bronze Age
cups. There is regional variation as to how the rules
are specifically executed and, in some regions, some
of the elements are lacking (eg, the gendered deposi-
tion, strict orientation rules, the burial mound),
while others are added (eg, stone cists), but these
are regional specifics that are not restricted to burials
connected with materials of one specific archaeolog-
ical culture.
Thus, from a polythetic perspective when looking at
burial rituals and styles of material culture, it is much a
more stringent practice to identify the burials just
discussed –thesingleburialsoftheLateNeolithic
and Early Bronze Age periods (2900–1400
BC
)in
Central Europe, southern Scandinavia, the Nether-
lands, and the British Isles –as one overall unit of burial
forms, which is much more distinct from previous,
neighbouring, and following burial forms than there
are differences between these graves, or between the
graves connected to different archaeological cultures.
THE SGBR COMPLEX
Instead of seeing the 3rd millennium
BC
in Europe
through the lens of monothetic, distinct archaeological
cultures, each with their own specific set of burial rit-
ual, the polythetic perspective reveals a wider complex
of new elements of burial ritual transcending the bor-
ders of these entities. This is a complex of burials that
highlights individual interments, gender differentia-
tion, male warriors, and mostly strict rules of
orientation of the dead (Fig. 1), as opposed to the
mainly collective burials of the preceding periods
and neighbouring regions. I would like to name it
the ‘Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Single
Grave Burial Ritual Complex’(SGBR). SGBR appears
in Central Europe and southern Scandinavia around
2900
BC
, arrives on the British Isles a few hundred
M. Furholt. aDNA STUDIES & MIGRATION DISCOURSE, 3RD MILLENNIUM BC IN EUROPE
117
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
years later, and prevails until cremation burials take
over, somewhen after 1400
BC
.
In defining such a complex, it seems important to try
to avoid a renewed reification. Explicitly, SGBR denotes
a set of principles connected with burials, which are
both variable and connected to different types of
material culture and, most probably, different economic
systems and social groups. In the beginning, burials
subsumed under SGBR are connected to Corded
Ware materials (Fig. 2), but a few centuries later, other
styles of material culture (Bell Beakers and the different
Early Bronze Age materials) become more popular
(Fig. 3). Furthermore, Corded Ware pots and weapons,
Bell Beakers and associated equipment, as well as Early
Bronze Age things are found in other contexts than
SGBR graves, namely in megalithic monuments, caves,
or in settlements –often also in regions where there are
no, or only very few, SGBR graves (see Figs 2–3).
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SGBR
IN THE MIGRATION DEBATE
The identification of this distinct complex of burial
forms is of special significance because it is these
graves that are most strongly associated with the bio-
molecular finding of steppe ancestry, much more so
than Corded Ware or Bell Beaker material objects.
The latter are, in some regions and periods, regularly
and predominantly connected to SGBR but, in others,
they are found in burials of different traditions, or
predominantly in settlements. As Olalde et al.
(2018) have shown, steppe ancestry is predominantly
connected to SGBR with Bell Beaker materials in
Central Europe, the Netherlands, England, and
Scotland, while in Spain, Portugal, and Italy SGBR
is uncommon and most individuals show no or very
little steppe ancestry. Some individual burials deviate
from this pattern (eg, Petit Chasseur in Switzerland)
but the trend is clear. In addition, several of the few
incidences of steppe ancestry in Spain and France
are connected to at least some elements of SGBR
(eg, in El Virgazal: Olalde et al. 2018, I5665; La
Magdalena: Olalde et al. 2018, I6471; La Fare:
Olalde et al. 2018, I2575).
In the case of burials connected to Corded Ware we
find a similar pattern. Most obviously, there is a clear
difference between regions in which Corded Ware
materials are found in SGBR graves and those in
Fig. 1.
The main elements of the SGBR: Single burial in crouched position, strict orientation rules, gender differentiation by body
placement, burial mound, prominence of drinking vessels, prominence of weapons in male graves
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
118
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
which they are found in settlements (see Furholt
2014). Interestingly there is a real inversion between
those two types of regions with Corded Ware materi-
als. In the first group, that is central and southern
Germany, Lower Austria, Bohemia, Moravia, south-
ern Poland, the Netherlands, north-west Germany
and Jutland, and parts of the Baltic states: Strahl
1990; Strahm & Buchvaldek 1991; Rimantienė
1992;Šebela 1999; Buchvaldek et al. 1997; Matthias
1982; Dresely 2004; Hübner 2005;Włodarczak 2006;
Furholt 2014), there are thousands of SGBR graves,
while settlements with Corded Ware materials are
found very rarely. By contrast, in those regions where
Corded Ware materials are frequently found in settle-
ments, there are no, or very few, SGBR graves, as in
Switzerland (Strahm 1971; Hafner & Suter 2003),
the Baltic states coastal areas (Rimantienė1992),
Belarus (Charniauski 2011), Finland (Nordqvist &
Häkälä 2014), southern Norway (Prescott &
Glørstad 2015), or coastal Netherlands (Beckerman
2015). Corded Ware materials found in settlements
are almost always from situations where they are suc-
cessively integrated into previously existing settlement
structures and styles of material culture (eg, in coastal
Netherlands, western Switzerland, the Baltic states,
and Belarus), or where they at least build upon exist-
ing traditions (eg, eastern Switzerland and Finland).
Additionally, there are regions where Corded Ware
materials are found in non-SGBR –megalithic –graves
graves and very rarely in settlements, as in north-east
Germany (Jacobs 1991) and on the Danish Isles
(Iversen 2015). The Fatyanovo Group on the
Russian plain seems to be an exception showing an
abundance of both SGBR graves and settlements
(Artemenko 1987).
What is subsumed under ‘Corded Ware’, then, are
obviously very different social phenomena. On the
most general level it makes sense to differentiate
Fig. 2.
The early SGBR in Europe around 2700
BC
(skeleton symbols). In addition, the map shows the regional patterns of Type 1
(grey Corded Ware beaker symbols) and Type 2 (orange Corded Ware beaker symbols) Corded Ware
M. Furholt. aDNA STUDIES & MIGRATION DISCOURSE, 3RD MILLENNIUM BC IN EUROPE
119
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
between ‘Type 1’Corded Ware (Corded Ware in
SGBR graves) and ‘Type 2’Corded Ware (Corded
Ware in settlements, without SGBR). In Type 1
Corded Ware graves, we consistently find individuals
with steppe ancestry, in Type 2 Corded Ware contexts
there are almost no connected burials from which to
draw. Clearly, absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence, but the situation regarding Corded Ware is
consistent with the Bell Beaker pattern: genetic
steppe ancestry is strongly connected to SGBR burials.
When it comes to the northern European megalithic
graves, these are mostly connected to pre-Corded
Ware archaeological units. Most burials show a pre-
steppe-impact genetic profile (Skoglund et al. 2012;
2014; Malmström et al. 2015), a few recently pub-
lished individuals from the later part of the 3rd
millennium also show steppe impact (Rascovan et al.
2018).
Yet, overall steppe ancestry is most strongly con-
nected to SGBR type burials. As SGBR shows parallels
with the burials connected to steppe-based complexes
like Sredni Stog, Usatovo, and Yamnaya, ie, the single
burial under a kurgan and some form of rules for
orientation of the dead (Frînculeasa et al. 2015), the
connection in the biological ancestry is paralleled by
connections in burial ritual.
CONSEQUENCES: A SAMPLING BIAS?
If the biological steppe ancestry is connected to a
specific complex of new burial forms, the SGBR, then
there arises a problem. Sampling for aDNA requires
well-preserved burial materials from secure contexts,
which SGBR burials provide, unlike other contexts.
It is most likely that many other burial forms are
archaeologically invisible, such as those connected
to the southern Central European Late Neolithic
associated with units like Cham, Horgen, Řivnáč,
Jevišovice B, or Bošáca), while poor bone preservation
in the majority of northern European megalithic
Fig. 3.
SGBR in Europe around 2400
BC
(skeleton symbols). In addition, the map shows the regional patterns of Type 1 (grey
Corded Ware beaker symbols) and Type 2 (orange Corded Ware beaker symbols) Corded Ware and Bell Beaker material
culture associated with SGBR (grey Bell Beaker symbols) and not associated with SGBR (brown Bell Beaker symbols)
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
120
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
graves creates a further sampling bias. If SGBR repre-
sents a new form of burial ritual, directly connected to
migrants and their lineages, the local, native popula-
tions will probably be under-represented in the
aDNA record. Thus, speculations about the total or
near total extinction of the Neolithic populations in
Central Europe after the arrival of migrants deriving
from the steppes (Haak et al. 2015) would be exagger-
ated. As SGBR burials remain dominant in the
archaeological record until the end of the Early
Bronze Age, and the cremation burials that follow pro-
vide less favourable conditions for aDNA sampling,
the genetic composition of later individuals from the
Iron Age should be taken into account, to assess if
we have, so far, missed a non-steppe ‘shadow popula-
tion’in the 3rd and 2nd millennia
BC
. Further aDNA
sampling of non-SGBR burials from this latter period
will also shed more light on this issue.
DISCUSSION: A REFINED MODEL OF POPULATION
MOVEMENT IN THE 3RD MILLENNIUM
Recently, Kristiansen et al. (2017) presented a model
to explain the 3rd millennium migration process. They
propose migration of mostly male individuals associ-
ated with Yamnaya burials into eastern Europe,
mixing with local females, from where again mainly
males migrate into central Europe mixing with local
females, thus creating Corded Ware. The theory of a
predominantly male migration in the 3rd millennium
BC
is debated in aDNA research (Goldberg et al.
2017; Lazaridis & Reich 2017). Still, the archaeolog-
ical and osteological evidence shows that eastern
Central European Yamnaya and early Corded Ware
burials are dominated by male individuals (Furholt
2014; Frînculeasa et al. 2015). This model is a good
starting point to better understand processes of human
migration in the 3rd millennium but here I want
to criticise its monothetic conceptualisation of
‘archaeological cultures’. Steppe ancestry is not neces-
sarily solely connected to individuals from a
Yamnaya-related context (as also clearly stated by
Kristiansen et al. 2017, 335). Yamnaya burials just
happen to be the group of Eastern European burials
first targeted by, and most readily available to, geneti-
cists. In addition, as with Corded Ware and Bell
Beakers, Yamnaya is also not likely to represent one
unified social group or biological population. As
Heyd (2017) points out, steppe-related characteristics
of burials have been coming from the east into South-
eastern and Central Europe for many centuries before
Yamnaya.
The label ‘Yamnaya’thus refers to a number of dif-
ferent burial rites, associated with a number of
different types of material culture. Also, it does not
necessarily represent all possible sources of the new
genetic component which appears in Central Europe
during the 3rd millennium. In Kristiansen’s model
the label ‘Yamnaya’should thus –in line with what
is currently discussed in the wider archaeological
and archaeogenetic community (Eisenmann 2018)–
be replaced by ‘people with steppe ancestry’or
‘Eastern European Ancestry’and, for the reasons dis-
cussed above, ‘Corded Ware’should be replaced
by ‘SGBR’.
The whole notion of Yamnaya as representing
nomadic pastoralists (Anthony 2007, 321f.; for a criti-
que of the pastoralist concept, see Makarewicz 2013)
and this being transferred to Corded Ware in Central
Europe is problematic. We are only starting to get an
empirical understanding of the actual economic and
social strategies connected to the different people bur-
ied in Yamnaya graves (Shishlina et al. 2012). So far,
pastoralist strategies appear to have been practised in
combination with the exploitation of other food
sources by some segments of the population (Shishlina
2008; Gerling et al. 2012). Conditions for herding are
quite varied in different parts of Central Europe and it
seems that subsistence strategies vary in connection to
different Corded Ware regions (Dörfler & Müller
2008).
Cultural traditions and social systems are likewise
to be seen as regionally diverse. Closer inspection of
what is normally called ‘Yamnaya kurgans’–allegedly
reflecting Yamnaya ideology (Kristiansen et al. 2017)
–has clearly revealed a much more complex relation
between local and immigrant individuals, burial
rituals, and material culture. For example, Gerling
et al. (2012) report on their detailed analyses of the
Yamnaya burial mound of Sárrétudvari-Őrhalom in
eastern Hungary. The earliest burial here is not the
expected male steppe migrant but a female (laid down
in a non-Yamnaya fashion before 3100
BC
) with local
strontium values. The next burial (before 2900
BC
)isa
mature male, also with local strontium signals, laid
down west–east on his right, with ochre and cattle
and horse bones –features that can be associated with
steppe region burials. This is followed by a group of
four non-local men and one child (buried partly in
Yamnaya fashion between 2900 and 2500
BC
).
M. Furholt. aDNA STUDIES & MIGRATION DISCOURSE, 3RD MILLENNIUM BC IN EUROPE
121
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Their isotope signatures and some grave goods point
towards Transylvania, while other grave goods point
towards both the Pontic Steppes and the Balkans. This
is referring to a complex history, to a merging of local
and regional connections by people with diverse
regional origins and mobility patterns. The narrative
of Yamnaya males migrating westwards severely
undervalues the complexity of processes indicated
by this single burial mound.
There are more studies of mobility and social group
composition in the 3rd millennium in Central Europe,
but like the Sárrétudvari-Őrhalom case, isotope data
are mostly referring to burial ground populations rather
than settlement communities. But here too, as in the
Early Neolithic (see above), differences in diet and
mobility patterns on the same burial grounds, as well as
between them, are clearly visible (Haak et al. 2008;
Sjögren et al. 2016; Knipper et al. 2017). The three stud-
ies cited refer to central and southern German burial
grounds and, in all cases, a higher degree of non-local
Sr isotope values in female individuals is interpreted
as the result of virilocal exogamous marriage/mating
practices. This is a valid conclusion. However, it seems
unsatisfactory to take one undifferentiated model –
female exogamy –as a sufficient explanation for the
data patterns. This model leaves unexplained the non-
local males in all three studies or the lack of offspring
that can be connected to the incoming women found
in in the Lech valley by Knipper et al. (2017). This latter
finding increases the significance of the Eulau grave 98,
where the supposed mother of the two children in this
triple burial is definitely not the biological mother
(Haak et al. 2008, 18228). An exchange or circulation
of children might also be a viable explanation.
Talking about female exogamy may be helpful to a
certain degree but only if it goes beyond mere labelling.
Otherwise it functions as a means to divert us from a
further discussion about social organisation. While
female exogamy is a sign of fluid social group bound-
aries, it often seems to serve the opposite purpose of
diverting attention from this very fact and downplaying
all other visible forms of mobility. It seems to serve as a
final explanation and allows us to hold onto the view of
clearly circumscribed social groups, as it is ‘only’
women who are handed over across stable social bor-
ders by supposedly male actors. It is telling that the
non-local males in Sárrétudvari-Őrhalom are never dis-
cussed as cases for male exogamy.
In the same way, while the finding of a male-domi-
nated migration from the steppes into Europe is
compelling (Goldberg et al. 2017), it does not actually
suggest that only men are responsible for the change in
the genetic record and should not lead us to a ‘case
closed’mentality concerning migration processes (see
Lazaridis & Reich 2017). Both these findings –
male-dominated migration and the fact that more
females were mobile –are also somewhat contradic-
tory, suggesting that more complex processes were at
play. In any case it is not sufficient to argue at a scale
level which suggests the same processes or factors as
being responsible for the creation of all the different
social phenomena we associate with Yamnaya,
Corded Ware, or Bell Beakers.
Returning to the model of Kristiansen et al. and
starting from the archaeological material, the poly-
thetic approach propagated here strongly suggests –
as a first step –a differentiation of what features as
‘Corded Ware’. In the regions dominated by SGBR
graves –that in the beginning are associated with
Corded Ware materials (Type 1 Corded Ware, see
Fig. 2)–we may be dealing with forms of colonisation,
bringing about a profound social transformation.
Here the appearance of genetic steppe ancestry coin-
cides with the formation of this new burial complex,
which highlights the gendered individual and also
shows the importance of weapons in connection to
male individuals. Recently, Robb and Harris (2018)
have argued that we actually see the formation of
the ideological emphasis on binary gender identities,
which was much less pronounced in the previous
periods, but which has more or less prevailed, they
argue, until today in western Eurasia, where it hence
dominates our thinking. Kristiansen et al. (2017)
suggest that this fundamental redefinition of human
identities is to be connected with the dominance of
male migrants in the 3rd millennium (see above).
However, it is worth noting that in the 3rd millennium
we are first and foremost dealing with a phenomenon
salient in the burial ritual of the SGBR. The wider
implications of this emphasis on binary gender roles
is a topic that goes beyond this paper.
These SGBR graves are found in regions with only
sparse evidence of previous populations (like in
Jutland; see Hübner 2005), or in previously settled
regions (Netherlands, central Germany, Bohemia,
southern Poland, parts of southern Germany, Lower
Austria). In these latter regions, Corded Ware material
culture is also found relatively often in settlement
sites assigned to the preceding (yet chronologically
overlapping) Late Neolithic units (ie, Funnel
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
122
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Beakers, Wartberg, Vlaardingen, Cham, Řivnač,
Jevišovice B, etc; see Furholt 2008a). Most material
things classified as Corded Ware are object types
which first appear in different parts of Central
Europe (the Corded Beaker) or southern Scandinavia
(the Corded Ware Battle Axe), or can be traced back
to central European traditions (the Amphorae, which
resemble the slightly earlier Globular Amphorae in east-
ern Central Europe; see the discussion in Furholt 2014).
These different components are merged together over
time, most visibly in the SGBR graves. It seems impor-
tant to stress that they are not traditions that can be
traced to the eastern European steppe region. Still, as
Corded Ware material culture appears in the earliest
SGBR graves, they are indirectly connected to individ-
uals with a strong genetic steppe ancestry, that is
migrants and their offspring.
As we have to assume that pottery is mostly locally
made (Strien 2005; Pechtl 2015; Müller & Peterson
2015; Vander Linden 2015; Maggetti & Suter
2017), the presence of Corded Ware pottery in settle-
ments dominated by ‘pre-Corded Ware’pottery styles
that are located in or close to regions with SGBR
graves, is likely to also represent some form of mixing
or, at least, co-habitation of individuals with a strong
steppe ancestry component in their family tree and
individuals with a stronger Central European ances-
try. By 2600
BC
most of these traditional settlement
sites are abandoned and settlement is now of the
new, archaeologically relatively invisible, kind which
is characteristic for regions with Type 1 Corded
Ware. Settlements being archaeologically invisible
might be interpreted as a result of a light, mobile
architecture, connected with steppe traditions of
mobile pastoralism (Anthony 2007). Yet, we have to
acknowledge that the scarce settlement material we
do have from these regions actually does show
regional variability, often resembling regional tradi-
tions (Hansen 1986; Kossian 2004; Hecht 2007;
Dörfler & Müller 2008). Thus it is too easy –and
methodologically incorrect –to define scarcity of set-
tlement remains as a similar cultural trait adopted
from the steppe regions. Archaeologically, what we
see in the regions with Type 1 Corded Ware is a mix-
ing of regional and transregional traditions (settlement
patterns, material culture), into a situation where the
transregional traditions successively, and relatively
quickly (4–10 generations between roughly 2800
and 2600
BC
) become dominant. This mixing of cul-
tural traditions might have been driven by a
biological mixture, in which female exogamy played
its role, beside other mechanisms, for example
exchange of children, as the Lech valley (Knipper et al.
2017) and Eulau (Haak et al. 2008) cases suggest, or a
higher degree of social fluidity in general.
The processes leading to the formation of situations
represented by Type 2 Corded Ware seem to be very
different. Here, it seems that the local communities
living in the traditional settlements successively
adopted Corded Ware pottery and battle-axes. We
have to be careful to separate the realm of pottery pro-
duction, whose traditions are created via social
learning, people`s identities, which are subjective,
and their biological ancestry, which might have been
largely unknown to the individuals themselves.
Corded Ware pottery vessels are thus, first and fore-
most, part of a transregional pottery style that emerged
in Central Europe between 2900 and 2600
BC
.Wedo
not know if the connection of this pottery style to the
SGBR graves and people with steppe ancestry in
other regions were known to the people that started
to produce these vessels along with those of other,
more local styles. Yet, as specific traditions in typol-
ogy and technology are not randomly changed but
are expressions of socially embedded practices of pro-
duction and knowledge transfer (Furholt 2018b), there
is a likelihood that incoming individuals might have
brought these innovations, especially as they are trans-
regionally shared. And the connection of these new
traditions of pottery making to the SGBR burials in
some regions might also suggest that some of these
incoming individuals could have had close contact
with, or themselves were people with, genetic steppe
ancestry.
Even if many details remain unclear, archaeology
can contribute significantly to a better understanding
of these social integration processes. An excellent
example of this is Sandra Beckerman’s(2015) study
of Dutch coastal settlements where she points to differ-
ent scenarios of how the local Vlaardingen pottery
style and the translocal Corded Ware pottery are inter-
twined. While, in some cases, Corded Ware pottery
replaces Vlaardingen vessels rather abrubtly, mostly
there was a side-by-side occurrence of the two styles
and gradual replacement. Most importantly, in several
sites Beckerman can show how different elements –
temper, technology, vessel shape, decoration –change
over time with Vlaardingen vessels slowly adopting
Corded Ware elements (Beckerman 2015, fig. 6.1).
This indicates a long-lasting interaction between
M. Furholt. aDNA STUDIES & MIGRATION DISCOURSE, 3RD MILLENNIUM BC IN EUROPE
123
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
potters socialised in both traditions, be it at the Dutch
sites in question or somewhere else. The different
speed of transformation and the extent to which the
local styles are replaced by the translocal ones (com-
pare also, for instance, the difference between
eastern and western Switzerland) might indicate the
proportion of newcomers vs locals, but they could also
be dependent on other factors determining the success
of one style or technological tradition over the other.
The exact mechanisms of change can only be explored
through a detailed technological and typological study
of pottery production patterns in individual sites or
regions with a good control of chronological resolu-
tion, as it was done by Beckerman and as it can be
done in many north-alpine lake-shore settlements.
From 2500
BC
, Bell Beakers partly replace Corded
Ware as the dominant material culture style used in
SGBR graves in Central Europe and the Netherlands.
At this time, SGBR graves appear together with Bell
Beaker materials and genetic steppe ancestry in the
British Isles while, at the same time, this style of mate-
rial culture is not, or is only loosely, connected to
genetic steppe ancestry in most parts of Western
Europe (Olalde et al. 2018).
Thus, in the 3rd millennium in Central Europe, in
contrast to the transregional burial rituals and pottery
styles, subsistence strategies, settlement patterns, and
house forms are clearly regional, often following local
traditions (Hafner & Suter 2003; Salzman 2004;
Dörfler & Müller 2008; Kleijne 2013; Brozio et al.
2013; Beckerman 2015; Brozio 2016; Suter 2017).
A similar pattern is also well-documented for the dif-
ferent Bell Beaker regions (Vander Linden 2006).
To sum up, in the early 3rd millennium, what is
really new in Central Europe is the introduction of
a novel package of burial ritual activities and grave
forms that can be connected with migration from
Eastern Europe and is to be seen in the realm of cos-
mology and social relations (eg, the binary gender
model) but much less so in terms of subsistence econ-
omy or material production. There are some regions in
which this profound cosmological and social change is
not visible at all in the archaeological record (Type 2
Corded Ware; Bell Beakers outside the SGBR burials).
CONCLUSION: MODELS OF MIGRATION,
FORMS OF MOBILITY?
This polythetic view of the 3rd millennium indicates
that the narrative of Steppe-derived migration creating
‘Corded Ware Culture’and later ‘Bell Beaker Societies’
is misleading. What the archaeological record in
Central Europe after 2900
BC
shows, first and fore-
most, is the creation of a new complex of burial
rituals (SGBR) that is connected to many different
styles of material culture. The model proposed by
Kristiansen et al. (2017) contains a one-dimensional
way of thinking about social groups in the 3rd millen-
nium. This is most visibly expressed in the reliance on
monothetically perceived units, like Yamnaya, Corded
Ware, Bell Beakers, and in likewise monothetical
descriptors, such as ‘migration’and pastoralism.
This should be refined by integrating a more nuanced
view on the archaeological materials, using a poly-
thetic classification. Since the establishment of the
simplified migration narrative, the image of a one-
directional, single-event mass migration, has caught
on in most works dealing with the new aDNA data.
However, we should be able to pursue more complex
models.
First, the idea of neatly separated groups of
migrants and groups of locals, who may or may not
interact, is a false premise. As discussed above, social
groups in the Neolithic are probably more fluid and
group membership is more flexible than the simplified
model implies. Thus, the suggestion of mixing between
those labelled as ‘natives’and ‘locals’should not be
seen as especially remarkable, or exceptional.
Rather, it should remind us that what we often
casually refer to as ‘migration’is likely a summary
term for a multiplicity of individual local and regional
histories of movement, mixture, and secession, proba-
bly over many generations. To talk about ‘natives’and
‘locals’refers to emic self-characterisations which are
neither to be equated with people’s genetic ancestry –
which is not necessarily known, as it can be many gen-
erations old at any given point in time –nor with the
material culture they produce and use –which is deter-
mined by socialisation, and subject to the flexibility
and social fluidity described above.
Secondly, this view is consistent with the archaeo-
logical evidence of the 3rd millennium
BC
which
shows a high degree of regional chronological vari-
ability and a polythetic setting between different
kinds of materials (eg, burial rituals, pottery, tools,
weapons). While many archaeologists tend to brush
over both this variability and the non-congruent set-
ting of different kinds of materials, and focus on
regularities and similarities between, for instance, dif-
ferent Corded Ware regional groups, the evidence
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
124
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
suggests that there is not one uniform migration phe-
nomenon, but many different variants, which yield
different archaeological outcomes. Thus, the defini-
tion of two types of archaeological units connected
to Corded Ware should not be taken to suggest that
there are exactly two distinct ways in which people
migrated into Central Europe. Rather, it seems clear
that the historical processes behind the formation of
communities represented by Type 1 and Type 2
Corded Ware are likely to be much more varied and
complicated than these types would suggest. But this
still very simplified classification seems as a useful
intervention in the ongoing debate of how to better
understand the results of the aDNA studies by better
integrating these data with the archaeological data
and anthropological knowledge. Yet, to capture the
complexity, multidimensionality, and variability of
processes, we need to direct more attention to regional
and local processes. We need more studies like, for
example, Haak et al. (2008), Gerling et al. (2012),
or Knipper et al. (2017), integrating both bioarchaeo-
logical and archaeological data on specific sites or in
more circumscribed regions. We also have to pay more
attention to the existing archaeological work unveiling
the interaction of local and transregional styles of
material culture (Hafner & Suter 2003; Kleijne
2013; Beckerman 2015; Iversen 2015; Großmann
2016; Brozio 2016; Suter 2017; Kolář2018;
Schultrich 2018) even if these cannot be directly con-
nected to aDNA analyses on the same materials.
An open and fruitful discussion between archaeo-
logists and biologists on how to integrate both archaeo-
logical and biological knowledge requires, from both
sides, a deeper understanding of the potential and limit-
ations of each dataset. It requires that we do not blur
objects of material culture, traditions of burial rituals,
and patterns of biological relatedness, or genetic proxi-
mity. Instead we need to explore these as different –
albeit interconnected –spheres of human activity,
whose patterns can only be synthesised when they
have first been analytically isolated. In order to build
better models with which to understand the social and
biological transformations of the 3rd millennium
BC
in
Europe, we need to actively turn away from the tradi-
tional monothetic approach that has proven to be
detrimental, as it meshes together different aspects
of social and cultural interaction with biological
descent. Neither from a biological nor from a social
perspective were 3rd millennium communities homo-
geneous and neatly separated, an observation that
requires –as a first step –a more thorough, and poly-
thetic, approach to these different spheres of human
lives. In the same vain, terms like migration, pastoral-
ism, or female exogamy need to be further explored
beyond their use as a mere label, using the broad array
of anthropological knowledge, and different forms of
human mobility should not be seen as mutually
exclusive.
This also means that it is far beyond the scope of
this paper to provide a more concrete model for the
migration processes of the 3rd millennium
BC
in
Europe because there is, in my view, not one single
model to be set up. Instead such models should be
developed based on local case studies, for which differ-
ent mechanisms will apply. Such a more bottom-up
perspective should complement and thus refine
overall, top-down models like that put forward by
Kristiansen et al. to which this paper is a response.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allentoft, M.E. et al. 2015. Population genomics of Bronze
Age Eurasia. Nature 522(7555), 167–72
Anthony, D.W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language:
how Bronze-Age riders from the Eurasian steppes shaped
the modern world. Princeton: Princeton University Press
Artemenko, I.I. 1987. Kul’tury shnurovoy keramiki:
srednedneprovskaya, prikarpatskaya, gorodoksko-
zdobickaya, stzhizhovskaya. In Arkheologiya SSSR.
Epokha bronzy lesnoy polosy SSSR,35–51. Moskva:
Russian Academy of Sciences
Beckerman, S.M. 2015. Corded Ware Coastal Communities:
using ceramic analysis to reconstruct third millennium BC
societies in the Netherlands. Leiden: Sidestone Press
Behrens, H. 1973. Die Jungsteinzeit im Mittelelbe-Saale-
Gebiet. Berlin: Deutsche Verlag der Wiesenschaften
Bentley, R.A. 2007. Mobility, specialisation and community
diversity in the Linearbandkeramik: isotopic evidence
from the skeletons. In A. Whittle, and V. Cummings
(eds), Going over. The Mesolithic–Neolithic Transition
in North-Western Europe, 117–40. Oxford: Oxford
University Press
Brandt, G. et al. 2013. Ancient DNA reveals key stages in the
formation of Central European mitochondrial genetic
diversity. Science 342(6155), 257–61
Brandt, G., Knipper, C., Nicklisch, N., Ganslmeier, R.,
Klamm, M. & Alt, K.W. 2014. Settlement Burials at the
Karsdorf LBK Site, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany: Biological
Ties and Residential Mobility. In A. Whittle, and P.
Bickle (eds) Early Farmers. The View from Archaeology
and Science,95–114. Oxford: British Academy.
Available at: http://www.britishacademypublications.
com/view/10.5871/bacad/9780197265758.001.0001/
upso-9780197265758-chapter-6 [Accessed?]
Brozio, J.P. 2016. Megalithanlagen und Siedlungsmuster im
trichterbecherzeitlichen Ostholstein. Bonn: Habelt
M. Furholt. aDNA STUDIES & MIGRATION DISCOURSE, 3RD MILLENNIUM BC IN EUROPE
125
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Brozio, J.P., Kirleis, W. & Müller, J. 2013. Jungsteinzeit
zwischen Haus und Freifläche –Oldenburg-Dannau LA
77. Archäologische Nachrichten aus Schleswig-Holstein
19, 25–7
Buchvaldek, M., Moucha, V., Popelka, M. & Vojtěchovská,
I. 1997. Katalogy šňůrové keramiky v Čechách XI-XIV.
Kladensko, Slánsko, Kralupsko a Praha-západ–
Kataloge der Schnurkeramik in Böhmen XI-XIV. Die
Räume von Kladno, Slaný, Kralupy n. Vlt. und Praha-
West. Praehistorica 22, Varia Archaeologica 7, 113–255
Burmeister, S. & Müller-Scheeßel, N. 2006. Soziale
Gruppen –kulturelle Grenzen: die Interpretation sozialer
Identitäten in der prähistorischen Archäologie. Münster:
Waxmann
Cameron, C.M. 2013. How people moved among ancient
societies: broadening the view. American Anthropologist
115(2), 218–31
Charniauski, M. 2011. Belarusian wetland settlements in
prehistory. Wetland settlements in northern Belarus. In
E. Prackėnaitė(ed.), Wetland Settlements of the Baltic.
A Prehistoric Perspective, 113–32. Vilnius: Center of
Underwater Archaeology. Available at: https://www.
academia.edu/37345867/Belarusian_Wetland_Settlements_
in_Prehistory_Wetland_settlements_in_Northern_Belarus
[Accessed November 20, 2018]
Childe, V.G. 1929. The Danube in Prehistory. Oxford:
Clarendon
Clarke, D.L. 1968. Analytical Archaeology. London:
Methuen
Dörfler, W. & Müller, J. 2008. Umwelt –Wirtschaft –
Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend
Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens [Tagung Kiel
2005]. Neumünster: Wachholtz
Dornheim, S., Liessner, B., Metzler, S., Müller, A., Ortolf, S.,
Sprenger, S., Stadelbacher, A., Strahm, C., Wolters, K. &
Wiermann, R.R. 2005. Sex und gender, Alter und
Kompetenz, Status und Prestige: Soziale Differenzierung
im 3. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. In J. Müller (ed.),
Alter und Geschlecht in ur- und Frühgeschichtlichen
Gesellschaften,27–71. Bonn: Habelt, Universitätsfor-
schungen zur Prähistorischen Archäologie
Dresely, V. 2004. Schnurkeramik und Schnurkeramiker im
Taubertal. Stuttgart: Theiss
Eggert, M.K.H., Müller-Scheessel, N. & Samida, S. 2012.
Prähistorische Archäologie: Konzepte und Methoden 4.,
überarb. Aufl.Tübingen: Attempto
Eisenmann, S. et al. 2018. Reconciling material cultures in
archaeology with genetic data: The nomenclature of clus-
ters emerging from archaeogenomic analysis. Scientific
Reports 8(1), 13003
Fischer, U. 1956. Die Gräber der Steinzeit im Saalegebiet.
Studien über neolithische und frühbronzezeitliche
Bestattungsformen in Sachsen-Thüringen. Berlin: de
Gruyter
Frînculeasa, A., Preda, B. & Heyd, V. 2015. Pit-Graves,
Yamnaya and Kurgans along the lower Danube: disentang-
ling IVth and IIIrd millennium
BC
burial customs, equip-
ment and chronology. Praehistorische Zeitschrift 90(1–2),
45–113
Furholt, M. 2008a. Erscheinungen asynchroner kultureller
Entwicklung am Übergang vom Spät- zum Endneo-
lithikum in Mitteleuropa. Eine Untersuchung der
Siedlungsfunde mit Schnurkeramik. In W. Dörfler, and
J. Müller (eds), Umwelt –Wirtschaft –Siedlungen im
dritten Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens.
Internationale Tagung Kiel 4.–6. November 2005,
9–34. Neumünster: Offa-Bücher 84.
Furholt, M. 2008b. Pottery, cultures, people? The European
Baden material re-examined. Antiquity 82, 617–28
Furholt, M. 2009. Die nördlichen Badener Keramikstile im
Kontext des mitteleuropäischen Spätneolithikums (3650–
2900 v. Chr.). Bonn: Habelt
Furholt, M. 2012. Die räumliche Struktur der entwickelten
Trichterbecherkeramik: Eine quantitative Analyse stilis-
tischer Ähnlichkeitsmuster. In M. Hinz & J. Müller,
(eds), Siedlung, Grabenwerk, Großsteingrab. Studien
zu Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Umwelt der
Trichterbechergruppen im nördlichen Miteleuropa.
Frühe Monumentalität und soziale Differenzierung,
473–84. Bonn: Habelt
Furholt, M. 2014. Upending a ‘totality’: re-evaluating
Corded Ware variability in Late Neolithic Europe.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 80, 67–86
Furholt, M. 2018a. Massive migrations? The impact of
Recent aDNA studies on our view of third millennium
Europe. European Journal of Archaeology 21(2), 159–91.
Furholt, M. 2018b. Translocal communities–exploring
mobility and migration in sedentary societies of
the European Neolithic and Early Bronze Age.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift 92(2), 304–21
Gerling, C., Bánffy, E., Dani, J., Köhler, K., Kulcsár, G.,
Pike, A.W.G., Szeverénvi, V. & Heyd, V. 2012.
Immigration and transhumance in the Early Bronze Age
Carpathian Basin: the occupants of a kurgan. Antiquity
334, 1097–111
Goldberg, A., Günther, T., Rosenberg, N.A. & Jakobsson,
M. 2017. Ancient X chromosomes reveal contrasting
sex bias in Neolithic and Bronze Age Eurasian migrations.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(10),
2657–62
Großmann, R. 2016. Das dialektische Verhältnis von
Schnurkeramik und Glockenbecher zwischen Rhein und
Saale. Bonn: Habelt
Haak, W., Brandt, G., de Jong, H.N., Meyer, C.,
Ganslmeier, R., Heyd, V., Hawkesworth, C., Pike,
A.W.G., Meller, H. & Alt, K.W. 2008. Ancient DNA,
Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light
on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone
Age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
105(47), 18226–31
Haak, W. et al. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe
was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe.
Nature 522(7555), 207–11
Hachem, L. & Hamon, C. 2014. Linear Pottery Culture
household organisation. An economic model. In A.
Whittle and P. Bickle (eds), Early Farmers. The View from
Archaeology and Science, 159–80. Oxford: British
Academy & Oxford University Press
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
126
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Hafner, A. & Suter, P.J. 2003. Das Neolithikum in der
Schweiz. www.jungsteinsite.de. 27 November 2003
Hansen, M. 1986. Enkeltgravskulturens bopladsfund fra
Vesthimmerland of Tibe-Området. In C. Adamsen, and
K. Ebbesen (eds), Stridsøksetid i Sydskandinavien, 286–
91. Copenhagen: Forhistorisk Arkaologisk Institut,
Kobenhavns Universitet
Hansen, K.P. 2003. Kultur und Kulturwissenschaft (3rd
edn). Tübingen/Basel: Utb Gmbh
Hecht, D. 2007. Das schnurkeramische Siedlungswesen im
südlichen Mitteileuropa: eine Studie zu einer
vernachlässigten Fundgattung im Übergang vom
Neolithikum zur Bronzezeit. Heidelberg: Universitäts-
bibliothek
Heyd, V. 2017. Kossinna’s smile. Antiquity 356, 348–59
Hillier, B. & Hanson, J. 1984. The Social Logic of Space.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Hofmann, D. 2015. What have genetics ever done for us?
The implications of aDNA data for interpreting identity
in Early Neolithic Central Europe. European Journal of
Archaeology 18(3), 454–76
Hübner, E. 2005. Jungneolithische Gräber auf der jütischen
Halbinsel. Typologische und chronologische Studien
zur Einzelgrabkultur. Copenhagen: Det kongelige
oldskriftselskab
Ion, A. 2017. How interdisciplinary is interdisciplinarity?
Revisiting the impact of a DNA research for the archaeology
of human remains. Current Swedish Archaeology 25, 177–98
Iversen, R. 2015. The Transformation of Neolithic Societies:
An Eastern Danish Perspective on the 3rd Millennium
BC
.
Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society
Jacobs, J. 1991. Die Einzelgrabkultur in Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern. Schwerin: Archäologisches Landes-
museum Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Jones, S. 1996. Discourses of identity in the interpretation of
the past. In P. Graves-Brown, S. Jones, & C. Gamble (eds),
Cultural Identity and Archaeology,62–80. London/New
York: Routledge
Kleijne, J.P. 2013. A Matter of Life and Death at Mienakker
(the Netherlands): late Neolithic behavioural variability in
a dynamic landscape. Amersfoort: Cultural Heritage
Agency of the Netherlands
Knipper, C., Mittnik, A., Massy, K., Kociumaka, C.,
Kucukkalipci, I., Masu, M., Wttenborn, S., Metz, S.E.,
Staskiewicz, A., Krause, J. & Stockhammer, P.W. 2017.
Female exogamy and gene pool diversification at the tran-
sition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in
central Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 114(38), 10083–8.
Kolář, J. 2018. Archaeology of Local Interactions. Social
and Spatial Aspects of the Corded Ware Communities
in Moravia. Bonn: Habelt
Kossian, R. 2004. Die Untersuchungen in dem neolithischen
‘Huntedorf 1’am Dümmer (Ldkr. Diepholz,
Niedersachsen) in den Jahren 1938 bis 1940. Ein
Zwischenbericht zum Stand der wissenschaftlichen
Auswertung. In H.-J. Beier, and R. Einicke (eds), Varia
neolithica III,75–99. Weissbach: Beiträge zur Ur- und
Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas
Kossinna, G. 1919. Das Siegreiche Vordringen meiner
wissenschaftlichen Anschauungen als Ergebnis meiner
wissenschaftlichen Methode. Mannus 11/12, 396–404
Kristiansen, K., Allentoft, M.C., Frei, K.M., Iversen, R.,
Johannsen, N.N., Kroonen, G., Pospieszny, L., Price, T.
D., Rasmussen, S., Sjögren, K.-G., Sikora, M. &
Willersley, E. 2017. Re-theorising mobility and the for-
mation of culture and language among the Corded
Ware Culture in Europe. Antiquity 356, 334–47
Lazaridis, I. & Reich, D. 2017. Failure to replicate a genetic
signal for sex bias in the steppe migration into Central
Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 114, E3873–4. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704308114
Lüning, J. 1972. Zum Kulturbegriff im Neolithikum.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift 47, 145–73
Maggetti, M. & Suter, P. 2017. Mineralogisch-petrographi-
sche und chemische Untersuchungen der Keramik. In P.
Suter (ed.), Um 2700 v. Chr. Wandel und Kontinuität
in den Ufersiedlungen am Bielersee, 236–9. Bern:
Archäologischer Dienst des Kantons Bern
Makarewicz, C. 2013. A pastoralist manifesto: Breaking
stereotypes and re-conceptualizing pastoralism in the
Near Eastern Neolithic. Levant 45(2), 159–74
Malmström, H., Linderholm, A., Skoglund, P., Storå, J.,
Sjödin, P., Gilbert, M.T., Holmlund, G., Willerslev, E.,
Jakobsson, M., Lidén, K. & Götherström, A. 2015.
Ancient mitochondrial DNA from the northern fringe of
the Neolithic farming expansion in Europe sheds light on
the dispersion process. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences
370(1660), p. 20130373; doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0373
Matthias, W. 1982. Kataloge zur Mitteldeutschen
Schnurkeramik T. 5. Mittleres Saalegebiet. Berlin:
Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften
Müller, J. 2001. Soziochronologische Studien zum Jung- und
Spätneolithikum im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100–2700
v. Chr.). Rahden/Westfalen: Leidorf
Müller, J. 2013. Kossinna, Childe and aDNA. Comments on
the construction of identities. Current Swedish
Archaeology 21, 35–7
Müller, J. & Peterson, R. 2015. Ceramics and society in
Northern Europe. In C. Fowler, J. Harding, and D.
Hofmann (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic
Europe, 573–604. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Nordqvist, K. & Häkälä, P. 2014. Distribution of Corded
Ware in the areas north of the Gulf of Finland –an
update. Estonian Journal of Archaeology 18(1), 3
Olalde, I. et al. 2018. The Beaker phenomenon and the geno-
mic transformation of northwest Europe. Nature
555(7695), 190–6
Pechtl, J. 2015. Linearbandkeramik pottery and society. In
C. Fowler, J. Harding, and D. Hofmann (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe, 555–72.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Prescott, C. & Glørstad, H. 2015. Expanding 3rd millen-
nium transformations: Norway. In M.P. Prieto Martínez
and L. Salanova (eds), The Bell Beaker Transition in
Europe: Mobility and local evolution during the 3rd
millennium
BC
,77–87. Oxford: Oxbow Books
M. Furholt. aDNA STUDIES & MIGRATION DISCOURSE, 3RD MILLENNIUM BC IN EUROPE
127
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Rascovan, N., Sjögren, K.G., Kristiansen, K., Nielsen, R.,
Willerslev, E., Desnues, C. & Rasmussen, S. 2018.
Emergence and spread of basal lineages of Yersinia pestis
during the Neolithic decline. Cell 176(1–2), 295–305; doi:
10.1016/j.cell.2018.11.005
Reich, D. 2018. Who We Are and How We Got Here:
Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past.
New York: Pantheon
Rimantienė, R. 1992. The Neolithic of the Eastern Baltic.
Journal of World Prehistory 6(1), 97–143
Robb, J. & Harris, O.J.T. 2018. Becoming gendered in
European prehistory: Was Neolithic gender fundamen-
tally different? American Antiquity 83(1), 128–47
Roberts, B.W. & Vander LindenM. (eds). 2011. Investigating
Archaeological Cultures. New York: Springer
Salzman, E. 2004. Poselenija kultury schnurowoi keramiku na
territorii Kalinigradskoi oblasti. Kalinigrad
Sarauw, T. 2007. Danish Bell Beaker pottery and flint
daggers –the display of social identities? European
Journal of Archaeology 11(1), 23–47
Schachner, G. 2012. Population Circulation and the
Transformation of Ancient Zuni Communities. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press
Schultrich, S. 2018. Das Jungneolithikum in Schleswig-
Holstein. Leiden: Sidestone Press
Šebela, L. 1999. TheCordedWareCultureinMoraviaandin
the Adjacent Part of Silesia (Catalogue). Brno: Archeologický
ÚstavAkademieVědČeské Republiky v Brně
Shennan, S. 2000. Population, culture history, and the
dynamics of culture change. Current Anthropology
41(5), 811–35
Shishlina, N.I. 2008. Reconstruction of the Bronze Age of
the Caspian Steppes: Life styles and life ways of pastoral
nomads. Oxford: British Archaeological Report S1876
Shishlina, N., Sevastyanov, V. & Hedges, R.E.M. 2012.
Isotope ratio study of Bronze Age samples from the
Eurasian Caspian Steppes. In E. Kaiser, J. Burger, &
W. Schier (eds), Population Dynamics in Prehistory and
Early History. New Approaches Using Stable Isotopes
and Genetics, 177–97. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter
Sjögren, K.-G., Price, T.D. & Kristiansen, K. 2016. Diet and
mobility in the Corded Ware of Central Europe. PLOS
ONE 11(5), e0155083
Skoglund, P., Malmström, H., Raghavan, M., Storå, J., Hall,
P., Willerslev, E., Gilbert, M.T., Götherström, A. &
Jakobsson, M. 2012. Origins and genetic legacy of
Neolithic farmers and hunter-gatherers in Europe.
Science 336(6080), 466–9
Skoglund, P., Malmström, H., Omrak, A., Raghavan, M.,
Valdiosera, C., Günther, T., Hall, P., Tambets, K., Parik,
J., Sjögren, K.G., Apel, J., Willerslev, E., Storå, J.,
Götherström, A. & Jakobsson, M. 2014. Genomic diver-
sity and admixture differs for stone-age Scandinavian
foragers and farmers. Science 344(6185), 747–50
Strahl, E. 1990. Das Endneolithikum im Elb Weser Dreieck.
Hildesheim: Veröffentlichungen der urgeschichtlichen
Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover 36
Strahm, C. 1971. Die Gliederung der Schnurkeramischen
Kultur in der Schweiz. Bern: Stämpfli & Cie
Strahm, C. 2010. Endneolithische Siedlungsmuster. In I.
Matuschik, and C. Strahm (eds), Vernetzungen. Aspekte
siedlungsarchäologischer Forschung. Festschrift für
Helmut Schlichterle zum 60. Geburtstag, 317–30.
Freiburg: Lavori
Strahm, C. & Buchvaldek, M. 1991. Die
kontinentaleuropäischen Gruppen der Kultur mit
Schnurkeramik. Prague: Praehistorica 19
Strien, H.-C. 2005. Familientraditionen in der bandkerami-
schen Siedlung bei Vaihingen/Enz. In J. Lüning, and C.
Frirdich (eds), Die Bandkeramik im 21. Jahrhundert,
189–97. Rahden/Westfahlen: Leidorf
Suter, P. 2017. Um 2700 v. Chr. Wandel und Kontinuität in
den Ufersiedlungen am Bielersee. Bern: Archäologischer
Dienst des Kantons Bern
Vander Linden, M. 2006. Le phénomène campaniforme
dans l’Europe du 3ème millénaire avant notre ère:
synthèse et nouvelles perspectives. Oxford: British
Archaeological Report S1470
Vander Linden, M. 2015. Bell Beaker pottery and society. In
C. Fowler, J. Harding, and D. Hofmann (eds), The
Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe, 605–20.
Oxford: Oxford University Press
Vander Linden, M. 2016. Population history in third-millen-
nium-
BC
Europe: assessing the contribution of genetics.
World Archaeology 48(5), 714–28
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, mean-
ing, and identity. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge
University Press
Włodarczak, P. 2006. Kultura Ceramiki Sznurowej na
Wyżynie Małopolskiej. Krak ´ow: Instytut archeologii i
etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk
Zvelebil, M. & Pettitt, P. 2013. Biosocial archaeology of the
Early Neolithic: Synthetic analyses of a human skeletal
population from the LBK cemetery of Vedrovice, Czech
Republic. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
32(3), 313–29
RÉSUMÉ
Réintégration de l’archéologie: Contribution aux études d’ADN et à la cconversation sur la migration au 3ème
millénaire av.J.C en Europe, de Martin Furholt
Depuis qu’une étude d’ADN a indiqué un flux génétique marqué venu de l’est en Europe centrale au 3ème
millénaire av.-J.C des récits démodés, simplistes de migrations massives de populations fermées ont refait leur
apparition dans les discussions archéologiques. Un modèle plus sophistiqué de migration venant des steppes fut
proposé récemmemt par Kristiansen et al. En réaction à cette proposition, cet article a pour but d’apporter sa
contribution à ce débat en cours en raffinant ce dernier modèle, offrant une meilleure intégration des données
THE PREHISTORIC SOCIETY
128
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
archéologiques et de la connaissance anthropologique. Nous argumentons qu’une classification polythétique du
matériel archéologique en Europe centrale au 3ème millénaire révèle la présence d’un nouveau complexe de
rituels d’inhumations individuelles qui transcendent les traditionnelles étiquettes de cultures. L’héritage
génétique de la steppe est essentiellement lié à cette nouvelle forme d’inhumations plutôt qu’au matériel de
la poterie cordée ou des peuples à vases. Ici nous argumentons qu’une vue polythétique des vestiges
archéologiques suggère des histoires plus complexes de migration, mélange de population et interaction que
ne le laissait supposer des modèles plus anciens et des façons de mieux intégrer des études détaillées du
matériel archéologique avec une exploration plus appprofondie des modèles anthropologiques de mobilité et
de composition de groupes sociaux et nous explorons les données biologiques moléculaires.
ZUSSAMENFASSUNG
Die Re-Integration der Archäologie: Ein Beitrag zu aDNA-Untersuchungen und zum Diskurs zu Migrationen
im 3. Jahrtausend
BC
in Europa, von Martin Furholt
Mit den Hinweisen aktueller aDNA-Untersuchungen auf einen markanten Genfluss von Ost- nach Mitteleuropa
im 3. Jahrtausend erstarken in den archäologischen Untersuchungen erneut veraltete und vereinfachende
Narrative von massiven Migrationen geschlossener Bevölkerungsgruppen. Ein anspruchsvolleres Modell von
Migrationen aus der Steppe wurde jüngst von Kristiansen et al. vorgelegt. Als Reaktion auf diesen Vorschlag
möchte der vorliegende Aufsatz einen Beitrag zu dieser fortdauernden Debatte leisten, indem hier letzteres
Modell verfeinert wird durch eine bessere Integration von archäologischen Daten und anthropologischem
Wissen. Es wird argumentiert, dass eine polythetische Klassifikation des archäologischen Materials aus
Mitteleuropa im 3. Jahrtausend das Vorhandensein eines neuen Komplexes von Einzelgrab-
Bestattungsritualen aufzeigt, der die traditionellen Kulturbezeichnungen transzendiert. Die genetische Steppen-
Signatur ist vor allem mit diesem neuen Bestattungstyp verbunden und weniger mit schnurkeramischem oder
Glockenbecher-Material. Eine polythetische Betrachtung der archäologischen Quellen, so wird hier argumentiert,
lässt kompliziertere historische Abläufe von Migration, Mischung und Interaktion von Populationen erkennen als
die bisherigen Modelle. Möglichkeiten einer besseren Integration von detaillierten Untersuchungen
archäologischen Materials mit einer tiefergehenden Auswertung anthropologischer Modelle von Mobilität
und sozialer Gruppenzusammensetzung und mit den molekularbiologischen Daten werden ergründet.
RESUMEN
Re-integrando la arqueología: una contribuci ´on de los estudios de ADN antiguo y el discurso sobre las migra-
ciones en Europa durante el III milenio
BC
, por Martin Furholt
Desde que los estudios de ADN antiguo sugirieron un marcado influjo genético desde el Este hacia
Centroeuropa en el III milenio
BC
, se han propuesto anticuadas y simplistas narrativas sobre migraciones masi-
vas de poblaciones cerradas en las discusiones arqueol ´ogicas. Un modelo más sofisticado de migraci ´on de las
estepas ha sido recientemente propuesto por Kristiansen et al. Como reacci ´on a esta propuesta, este artículo
pretende contribuir al actual debate definiendo el último modelo, integrando de manera más apropiada los datos
arqueol ´ogicos y el conocimiento antropol ´ogico. Se argumenta que una clasificaci ´on politética del material
arqueol ´ogico en Centroeuropa en el III milenio
BC
revela la presencia de un complejo nuevo, caracterizado
por un ritual funerario individual que trasciende las características tradicionales de este complejo cultural.
El ancestro genético estepario está principalmente relacionado con este nuevo tipo de enterramientos, más
que con la cerámica Corded Ware o con los materiales campaniformes. En este artículo se argumenta que
una visi ´on politética de la evidencia arqueol ´ogica sugiere historias más complicadas de migraci ´on, mezclas
poblacionales e interacciones que las asumidas por modelos anteriores, y permite una mayor integraci ´on de
los detallados estudios de materiales arqueol ´ogicos con una profunda exploraci ´on de los modelos antro-
pol ´ogicos de movilidad y composici ´on social del grupo y la exploraci ´on de los datos de biología molecular.
M. Furholt. aDNA STUDIES & MIGRATION DISCOURSE, 3RD MILLENNIUM BC IN EUROPE
129
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2019.4
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 178.171.66.143, on 10 Jun 2020 at 18:55:37, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at