Corded Ware Yamnaya

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/365454452
Cultural genesis and ethnic processes in Central and Eastern Europe in the 3rd
millennium bc: Yamnaya, Corded Ware, Fatyanovo and Abashevo cultures
Article in Journal of Ancient History and Archeology · November 2022

DOI: 10.14795/j.v9i3.754
CITATION READS
1 918
1 author:
Stanislav Grigoriev
Institute of History and Archaeology, Russia, Yekaterinburg
34 PUBLICATIONS 123 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Stanislav Grigoriev on 17 November 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Institute of Archeology and Art History of
Romanian Academy Cluj-Napoca JAHA
Technical University Of Cluj-Napoca
Journal
of Ancient History
and Archaeology
DOI:
DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.14795/j.v9i3
http://dx.doi.org/10.14795/j.v8i1
ISSN 2360 266x
ISSN–L 2360 266x
No. 8No. 9.31/2022

.1 /202
CONTENTS
STUDIES
ANCIENT HISTORY ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL
Annamária – Izabella PÁZSINT Stanislav GRIGORIEV

CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROSOPOGRAPHIA PONTI EUXINI CULTURAL GENESIS AND ETHNIC PROCESSES
EXTERNA. KALLATIANOI ET ODESSITAI ...................................... 5 IN CENTRAL AND EASTERN EUROPE IN THE 3RD
MILLENNIUM BC: YAMNAYA, CORDED WARE,
FATYANOVO AND ABASHEVO CULTURES ................................ 43
Alexander CANDUCI
THE ROMAN WITHDRAWAL FROM BRITAIN – 410 OR 435?
A FRESH PERSPECTIVE ............................................................... 17 Beatrice CIUTĂ, Florin GOGÂLTAN
VEGETAL RITUAL OFFERINGS
FROM A LATE BRONZE AGE PIT
Aleksandr SYMONENKO FROM VLAHA-PAD SITE, CLUJ COUNTY, ROMANIA .............. 85
LATE SCYTHIAN CULTURE OF THE LOWER DNIEPER:
THE ISSUE OF ORIGIN ................................................................. 27
Marius-Mihai CIUTĂ, Florian MATEI-POPESCU
A FRAGMENT OF A ROMAN MILITARY DIPLOMA
NUMISMATICS DISCOVERED IN THE VICINITY OF MICOȘLACA
(MIKLÓSLAKA, OCNA MUREȘ CITY, ALBA COUNTY) ............. 93
Cristian GĂZDAC, Radu ZĂGREANU
THE SMALL HOARD FROM HERINA. Alka STARAC
DYRRACHIUM COINS AND SILVER BRACELET ........................ 33 SHRINES OF THE DOMUS IN THE QUARTER
OF ST. THEODORE IN PULA ..................................................... 103
TOPOGRAPHY
Florin-Gheorghe FODOREAN
MAPS OF ROMAN DACIA. III. MAP 21 DACIA-MOESIA
(1:1,000,000) IN THE BARRINGTON ATLAS
OF THE GREEK AND ROMAN WORLD .................................... 125
Design & layout:

Petru Ureche
Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Studies
ANCIENT HISTORY
CULTURAL GENESIS AND ETHNIC

PROCESSES IN CENTRAL AND
EASTERN EUROPE IN THE 3RD
MILLENNIUM BC: YAMNAYA,
CORDED WARE, FATYANOVO AND
ABASHEVO CULTURES
Stanislav GRIGORIEV
Abstract: There are two main hypotheses about the localization of the Indo- Institute of History and Archaeology Chelyabinsk
European homeland. The first connects the spread of the Indo-Europeans stgrig@mail.ru
with the migrations of the kurgan cultures of the Ponto-Caspian steppes,
primarily the Yamnaya. Therefore, the hypothesis was called “kurgan”. The
second hypothesis assumes the localization of the Indo-European homeland
in the Near East. According to the Kurgan hypothesis, the Yamnaya migration
DOI: 10.14795/j.v9i3.754
at the beginning of the EBA led to the formation of Corded Ware cultures from ISSN 2360 – 266X
the Rhine to the Volga, which caused the spread and formation of modern ISSN–L 2360 – 266X
European dialects. In fact, there are no grounds for assuming the formation of
Corded Ware cultures on the Yamnaya basis. They were formed partly on the
basis of European Neolithic cultures, partly on the basis of impulses from the
steppe zone in the pre-Yamnaya time. There is also no reason to assume that it
was this process that led to the formation of the Celto-Italic and Balto-Slavic-
Germanic languages. It is more likely that bearers of these cultures spoke
Proto-Venetic and Proto-Illyrian languages.
Keywords: Indo-European problem, Early Bronze Age, Yamnaya migration,
Corded Ware cultures, Abashevo, Veneti, Illyrians.
1. INTRODUCTION
W
ith rare exceptions, the population of modern Europe speaks
the languages of the Indo-European family. Moreover, most of
the languages of this family are situated in Europe. Therefore, it
is no coincidence that the ancient history of Europe is extremely important
for solving the Indo-European problem. Currently, there are three main
hypotheses about the homeland of the Indo-Europeans. The first relates
them to the kurgan cultures of the Eneolithic and EBA1 of the Ponto-Caspian
steppes, therefore it was called the “kurgan hypothesis”.2 According to the
second, the Indo-Europeans came to Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic
1
The following abbreviations are used in the article: EBA – Early Bronze Age, MBA – Middle
Bronze Age, EH – Early Helladic period, GAC – Globular Amphorae culture, CWC – Corded Ware
culture, TRB – Funnel Beaker culture, BBC – Bell Beaker culture, IE – Indo-European, PIE – Proto-
Indo-European.
2
MALLORY 1989; GIMBUTAS 1956; ANTHONY 2007.
Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 43-84 43

Studies
from Asia Minor.3 Finally, the third assumes the localization genetic affinity depends primarily on geographic proximity,
of the homeland in the territory of Upper Mesopotamia and although language affinity is not much inferior to it. In
the Armenian Plateau.4 the Caucasus, the main role is played by the language
Until recently, this problem was solved by means factor, while among the Turkic people, the geographic one
of archaeology and linguistics, and there has always been dominates sharply. This situation is partly explained by the
a question of how adequately the archaeological materials fact that related languages are localized in close areas, and
reflect the linguistic situation, since it was obvious that the identified deviations find quite logical explanations. The
they did it not completely. This is caused by the fact that dominance of the language factor among the Balts and Slavs
within the framework of this discussion, the spread of some is explained by their rapid expansion over vast areas and
language is forced to be identified with the spread of some the assimilation of the local population. The significance of
archaeological culture within the framework of a monothetic this factor among the Turkic people is much greater, which,
approach to it. However, culture is a more complex in the presence of a small common ancestral admixture, is
phenomenon, and, perhaps, it is more true to discuss these explained by the model of “elite dominance”, etc. At the same
problems within the framework of a polythetic approach, time, if the Western and Eastern Slavs are genetically close,
since with the spread of new cultural traditions there could then the southern Slavs differ from them, although common
be different processes of interaction with local populations, ancestral genomes can be distinguished. The situation in the
and different social structures could be formed in which this Caucasus is explained by a long internal development. It is
process was implemented. This is reflected, in particular, in possible to see the differences between individual ethnic
the fact that there are areas where European corded ware is groups, but with a very detailed analysis, not yet possible for
present in burials, but there are no settlements at all, and ancient populations. For example, the Finno-Ugric cluster, as
there are areas where it is found in settlements, but there are a whole, is included in the pan-European one, but within the
no corresponding burials.5 This is perfectly true, but it makes latter it stands out quite clearly. Clusters of individual ethnic
it difficult for us to reconstruct those linguistic changes that groups can be distinguished, although their boundaries are
are associated with the spread of some ceramic style or blurred. Sometimes in two closely related ethnic groups
funerary rite. Obviously, the hypothetical penetration of the (e.g. Moldovans and Romanians) we see genetic differences,
steppe tribes with the kurgan rite and the new ideology did sometimes large, as in the case of two groups of Mordovians,
not necessarily lead to the spread of their language within Erzya and Moksha, despite living in the same region. In many
the CWC area. Even if their dominance is supposed,6 which cases, one can assume the influence of some very ancient
has no reliable evidence, this could hardly have caused genetic groups, but the influence of the former substrate is
large-scale language transformations. Nowhere did elite everywhere very strong. In addition, the modern situation
dominance end with this.7 The exceptions are situations is difficult to use in the reconstruction of ancient processes,
with the spread of languages in nomadic areas, for example, since there were discrepancies after migrations.8 Because all
Turkic. However, for Europe, with its large agricultural these circumstances, it is difficult to compare paleogenetic
population, it is difficult to imagine that the conquest of the data with the current situation, but they are not influenced by
territory by incomparably smaller groups of steppe people later processes, and the identification of ancestral genomes
could quickly lead to a change in language. This is unlikely in them is more reliable. But to base conclusions about
for demographic reasons. But in some regions it was quite language on this, especially on some kind of marker genome,
possible, in particular, in the Middle Danube, where the as is sometimes done, is completely futile, although it is
number of Yamnaya graves is really large. possible to draw some conclusions from this. For example,
In recent years, paleogenetics have joined the the G1 haplogroup originated in the Near Eastern Highlands
discussion of the problem, but the results of their work also (as indicated by the trend from the maximum values o f 0.8 in
allow broad interpretations, although they are perceived by the west of Iran to 0 in Mongolia), and its wide distribution
many archaeologists as the final truth. However, paleogenetic in Eurasia (Armenia, Central Asia, Bashkiria, Iran, India)
studies are unable to provide an unambiguous solution to is probably connected with the spread of Iranian-speaking
the problems of ethnic processes, since the results of these peoples. But now it is present among different ethnic groups,
studies may be influenced by various factors. At the same although its connection with individual clans or tribal
time, the results calculated for mtDNA, Y-chromosomes groups is observed: among the Kazakhs – Argyn, among the
and genome-wide studies based on autosomal markers Armenians – Hamshen, among the Bashkirs – Kangly. As a
may differ. For example, among the Slavs, the difference result, the haplogroup itself is not a marker of specific ethnic
in Y-chromosomes is 7 times higher than in mtDNA. groups.9
Subsequent comparisons depend on the completeness of the
Therefore, the data of archaeology, linguistics and
sampling, which is still insignificant for ancient genomes.
genetics are not equivalent to each other. The only solution
However, some patterns are quite obvious. In Europe, for
in this situation is to reconstruct the large-scale processes
example, with its rather similar mtDNA genetic composition,
on the basis of these disciplines and compare them with
3
RENFREW 1987.
each other. If they match, we are able to speak about
4
GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1995; GRIGORIEV 2002.
5
FURHOLT 2019; 2020. 8
BALANOVSKII 2015, 128, 135, 136, 137, 167, 177, 183, 185, 202, 205–
6
ANTHONY 2007, 360. 208, 211, 212, 230, 240, 259.
7
HEGGARTY 2015, 618, 619. 9
BALANOVSKII 2015, 250–256.
44 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Studies
the relative reliability of the reconstruction.10 However, Caspian steppes are united in the community “Khvalynsk –
this requirement for the widest possible coverage, both Sredny Stog”. But the Sredny Stog culture has been divided
territorial and chronological, often leads to the fact that into several cultures. The earliest of them is Skelya, which
Indo-European reconstructions use schemes of cultural is synchronous with Gumelnița A2-B1, Varna, Cucuteni
genesis simplified to such an extent that they do not A, in the Northern Balkans, Trypolye B-I, the pre-Maikop
correspond to the original archaeological material at all. horizon of the North Caucasus (Meshoko, Miskhaka,
After that another process comes into play. Archaeologists Svobodnoye), Khvalynsk and Yamno-Berezhnovka sites of
exploring some territory naturally see these inconsistencies, the Volga region. The culture is dated to 4500–4100 BC. In
but ignore them, believing that this is excusable given such its burials, zoomorphic scepters were found, appearing in the
large-scale approaches, and at the same time they do not Northeastern Balkans in Suvorovo-type complexes, as well as
doubt the validity of the scheme in general. As a result, we copper and gold objects of Balkan origins. Only for this stage
are faced with a series of paradoxical situations and obvious may we speak of a certain commonality with Khvalynsk,
contradictions, which will be discussed below. Thus, in then this unity of the Pontic and Volga steppes decreases.15
addition to an extremely broad approach, sufficient detail is It is interesting that many copper ornaments from the
required, which makes such studies very complex. Khvalynsk cemeteries were either Balkan imports from the
A broad comparison of cultural, linguistic and cultures of Varna, Gumelnița, Karanovo (mainly from the
genetic processes in Eurasia showed that culture, genes and Lower Danube, from the Varna–Black Sea zone), or made
languages spread across the continent from south to north. according to Balkan samples, which is clearly manifested in
There is no real data on the drift of culture and genes from their typology, chemical composition and manufacturing
the steppe to regions from Asia Minor to India inhabited technology. Moreover, this is typical not only for these Volga
by southern Indo-Europeans (Hittites, Luwians, Palaians, sites, but also for the entire Pontic region and even for the
Phrygians, Armenians, Iranians and Indians).11 This means pre-Maikop horizon of the North Caucasus.16 This reflects
that the homeland of the Indo-Europeans was in the Near a rather typical situation of return impulses, which we will
East. This made it possible to focus on individual areas, and see further in the Eneolithic and EBA, but which periodically
the most promising of them was Greece, with its rather took place in later periods.17
early written tradition and many legends reflecting the The next stage is represented by the Sredny Stog
realities of the Bronze Age. As a result, it was possible to culture, synchronous with Trypolye B II/C I, C I, which
demonstrate that the Greeks migrated to the south of the is dated to 4100–3600 BC, and after that the Dereivka
Balkan Peninsula from Asia Minor.12 Probably, a little later, sites appeared, as well as the first kurgans: Kvityana (with
the Thracians migrated to the Carpatho-Danubian region extracted burials), Nizhne-Mikhailovka (with ocher-colored
from there.13 In the process of this work, the impression burials contracted on their sides), but in all of them the
arose that the penetration of the steppe tribes into the north buried are oriented with their heads to E, which was a
of the Balkans was also associated with the Indo-Europeans, tradition of the steppe Eurasia. This horizon of cultures is
speakers of the Proto-Venetic and Proto-Illyrian languages. dated to ca. 3700/3600 – 3000 BC, being synchronous with
This hypothesis was the reason for the present work. In it, we the Trypolye B-II/C-I, C-I, C-II and Cernavoda I, Ib cultures.18
will consider in stages the cultural processes in Southeastern In the late Eneolithic (the last third of the 4th
Europe, starting with the late Eneolithic cultures of the North millennium BC), a large series of very differentiated groups
Pontic region and ending with the people of the Fatyanovo spread in the North Pontic area, often with burial mounds:
and Abashevo cultures who migrated from Central Europe to Kvityana,19 late Sredny Stog, Usatovo, Nizhne-Mikhailovka.
the east. Such a wide coverage allows us to draw conclusions Recently, the Zhivotilovka-Volchanskoe group has been
about the ethnic processes in this period. identified in a large area from the eastern Carpathians to
the North Caucasus (Fig. 1). It has a stratigraphic position
2. STEPPE TRIBES IN THE ENEOLITHIC between the EBA Yamnaya complexes and the Eneolithic
ones (Nizhne-Mikhailovka, Sredny Stog and Kvityana sites
The Kurgan theory assumes several waves of
on the Lower Dnieper and the Konstantinovka ones in the
penetration of the steppe people into Europe, which ended
Kuban area). The relationship with the Usatovo monuments
with the Yamnaya migration. The Kurgan tradition originated
in the west is not clear. There are no settlements and flat
in the Pontic region in the Middle Eneolithic (3900/3800–
cemeteries of this group. The monuments are represented by
3500/3400 BC), when the first mounds with cromlechs and
small earth mounds with one burial, sometimes with a ditch.
ditches appeared, evolving from earlier structures with small
stone structures. Thus, they formed there earlier than in the 15
RASSAMAKIN 1994, 33–36, 42.
Volga-Ural steppes, and this phenomenon was partly caused 16
RYNDINA 2010, 234, 241, 242; CHERNYKH 2010, 221, 222, 225.
by relations with the Balkan-Carpathian and Caucasian 17
An example of this is a situation when, at the beginning of the A2b
phase, the Seima-Turbino metallurgical tradition penetrated into Central
regions.14 Often the Eneolithic cultures of the Pontic- Europe, and soon cheekpieces decorated in the Carpatho-Mycenaean style
appeared from the Northern Black Sea region to the Transurals and Western
10
GRIGORIEV 2002, 15; HEGGARTY 2015, 602; GRIGORIEV 2021a, 188– Kazakhstan. But these cheekpieces also have many morphological features
190. borrowed from the Carpathians (GRIGORIEV 2021b).
11
GRIGORIEV 2021a. 18
RASSAMAKIN 1994, 39–44.
12
GRIGORIEV 2022. 19
This culture is often also called post-Mariupol, but Yu.Ya. Rassamakin
13
GRIGORIEV 2021b. objects to this, since all the Eneolithic cultures here are post-Mariupol
14
RASSAMAKIN 2012, 294, 299, 303. (RASSAMAKIN 1994, 39).
Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 45

Studies
Fig. 1. Late Eneolithic complexes of Zhivotilovka-Volchanskoe. Burials: 1 – Koldyri, k. 14, gr. 7; 2 – Boguslav I, k. 23, gr. 12. Ceramics with
parallels in the European cultures of Central Europe (3), Maikop-Novosvobodnaya (4), in the agricultural communitites of the North-West
Pontic region (5, 6, 8) and in the Eneolithic steppe complexes (7): 3 – Costeşti, k. 2, gr. 2; 4 – Sokolovo I, k. 6, gr. 4; 5 – Sokolovo II, k.1, gr.
9; 6 – Gura Bâcului, k. 8, gr. 15; 7 – Kamenka-Dneprovskaya, k. 8, g. 12; 8 – Taraclia II, k. 10, gr. 2 (after MANZURA 2016, figs. 2: 1, 2; 6: 1,
5, 9, 13; 7: 8, 14).

Studies
The pits are rectangular or oval, but there are catacombs20 rite is a unifying feature. Therefore, it is assumed that the
(Fig. 1/1, 2) and stone boxes in Ingul and Ingulets valleys. integrating moment was the spread of a new ideology.24
The buried lie contracted on their side, and, despite the The most interesting for us are the Yamnaya groups
small number of anthropological definitions, the presence of in the western area, because it was they who influenced
sexual differentiation is assumed: those buried on the left the cultural genesis of Europe. They are represented by
side are more often oriented to the NE and E, and on the monuments of the Budzhak culture, which was formed
right are to the S and SE.21 on the basis of various Eneolithic substrates, and was not
The graves contain flint plates, scrapers, stone axes, a Yamnaya population that came from the east (Fig. 2). In
asymmetric arrows with a straight, concave or beveled base. addition, the formation of the material complex of its early
Ware is represented by pots and amphorae with analogues in stage (primarily ceramics) was greatly influenced by the
Trypolye C2 and the Costeşti-Kasperovtsi group (Figs. 1/5, Coţofeni culture of the Carpathian Basin, as well as Kostolac
6, 8). The second group of ware has origins in the Maikop- and Ezero II. Monuments of the culture are represented
Novosvobodnaya complexes (Fig. 1/4), the third in the local by mounds with ditches surrounding the burial ground,
Eneolithic cultures of Usatovo, Konstantinovka, Sredny Stog arranged in a circle contracted burials on the back, but also
(Fig. 1/7), the fourth group is quite amorphous, and the fifth, on the right (7.3%) or left (6.1%) side, and this is not related
common from the Caucasus to the Prut river, is represented to chronology. The central burials are oriented to the west,
by beakers with a flat or rounded bottom, funnel-shaped while the peripheral ones are oriented along the arc of the
neck, and parallels in Novosvobodnaya, Funnel Beaker circle. In the pits, there are mats and ocher, stone axes and
culture (TRB) and Baalberg (Fig. 1/3). It is assumed that these ware in the form of beakers and amphorae with parallels in
groups were formed on a local basis, with the participation GAC, CWC, the Balkan cultures Cernavoda II and Ezero, as
of the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya culture penetrated into the well as Coţofeni and Kostolac in the Carpathian Basin and
steppe area. Subsequently, it was this group that formed the Northern Serbia (connections with the latters was most
basis of the Yamnaya culture in the North Popntic area.22 significant at the early stage). There are single vessels of
Baden and Funnel Beaker culture, as well as some round-
bottomed and egg-shaped vessels of the Yamnaya culture in
3. BUDZHAK CULTURE OF THE YAMNAYA the Bug-Dnieper interfluve. Remains of wagons were found
CULTURAL-HISTORICAL AREA in 17 burials. The culture has been dated to the interval
The problem of the formation of Yamnaya culture is of 3100–2200 BC.25 The early part of these dates partly
very far from being solved. It is widely believed that it was coincides with the interval of the Late Eneolithic Kvityana/
formed on the basis of the Eastern Eneolithic groups of the Post-Mariupol and Zhivatilovka-Volchanskoe groups, but
Khvalynsk culture in the Volga region (5th – 4th millennia BC), radiocarbon intervals often overlap one another due to the
as well as sites of the Repin Khutor type, distributed from fact that they show a range of probabilities. However, the
the Don to the Southern Urals, dated to ca. 3800–3300 BC.23 coexistence of different complexes can also be assumed.26
And, in the east, indeed, Repin’s features were preserved in Therefore, it is possible that the contact of the Late
the Yamnaya culture. However, from the Don to the Dnieper, Eneolithic groups with the Balkan-Carpathian populations
there are sites of the Sredny Stog type, culturally close, which caused a transformation (cultural and social) in the North-
are also considered as the basis for the Yamnaya formation. West Pontic region, and social groups appeared there with
In fact, between them and the Yamnaya complexes was this new stereotypes that coexisted with the former ones. Soon,
layer of cultures of the last third of the 4th millennium BC, the steppe populations of the entire North Pontic region
represented by sites of the Zhivotilovka-Volchanskoe group. began to be included in this system. But the process was
Besides, usually, when ones talk about the earlier Yamnaya certainly more complex, since the presence in the Budzhak
dates in the east, they mean not the Yamnaya sites themselves, culture of burials contracted on the back indicates eastern
but the Repin ones. There are no real grounds for this, as well impulses, where early Yamnaya stereotypes appeared
as grounds for conclusions about the Volga-Ural roots of the already in the Yamnaya-Berezhnovka sites, synchronous
Yamnaya culture. It was formed almost simultaneously on with the above-mentioned Late Eneolithic ones. S.V. Ivanova
the basis of integration of different Eneolithic substrates. suggests that the source of these burials in the Budzhak
This is clearly manifested in the fact that in the west and culture was a relatively small group of post-Stog burials
east, various anthropological and ceramic types have been in this region.27 But such burials were characteristic of the
identified, which shows that there were no noticeable late Eneolithic groups in a large area from the Dnieper to
migrations within the Yamnaya community, and the burial the Volga. Therefore, the absolute dominance of this rite
in the Yamnaya culture from the Carpathian Basin to the
20
The earliest catacombs in the region were found in the Skelya culture of Urals indicates, rather, the massive involvement of eastern
the first half of the 5th millennium BC (RASSAMAKIN 2012, 294). But so
far there is no way to show the continuity of this tradition until the late
populations in this process. The appearance of Anatolian
Eneolithic time.
21
Thus, their faces are turned to the south and east, to the “sunny” sector, 24
IVANOVA et alii 2018, 101, 102, 113, 114, 117, 118, 124; IVANOVA
which, as shown by R.A. Litvinenko (2006), is fundamental to this principle 2021, 286.
of burials in the Corded Ware cultures. 25
IVANOVA 2012, 18–27, 31, 35–39; FRÎNCULEASA et alii 2015, 80;
22
RASSAMAKIN 1994, 45, 62; MANZURA 2016, 150–163, 167; IVANOVA IVANOVA et alii 2018, 118; IVANOVA 2021, 43–52, 163–170, 279.
2021, 151–156. 26
IVANOVA 2009, 48–53.
23
MORGUNOVA 2014. 27
IVANOVA 2021, 156–158.

Studies
Fig. 2. Budzhak culture: 1 – Olaneşti, k. 1; 2 – Kubey 1/6; 3 – Baranove 1/10 (after IVANOVA 2021, figs. 2.3: 1; 2.4: 2; 2.10: 3); 4–9 – ce-
ramics (after IVANOVA et alii 2018, fig. 8).
genes in the Yamnaya culture of the Dnieper (Ozera) region Yamnaya people of the North Caucasus, having formed, in
also requires its explanations. Moreover, their proportion general, on the basis of local Eneolithic groups, have about
in the Ozera population is noticeably higher than in other 16% of the ancestors in the European GAC population. One
Yamnaya groups and Maikop. On the other hand, the gets the impression that the formation of the Yamnaya

Studies
population was much more dynamic, since it involved, in and the Carpathian Basin, a reverse impulse soon followed,
addition to local Eneolithic groups, Central European groups and stronger interactions were established with the western
in different proportions, and some flows of genes from regions. Subsequent connections are manifested in the fact
Anatolia are recorded.28 The latter, however, cannot always that later forms of amphorae and CWC beakers appeared in
be reliably distinguished, since Central European farmers the Budzhak culture. These last processes cover the period
already had a high proportion of genes of Anatolian origins. from 2800/2700 BC to the mid-3rd millennium BC.38
In addition, these processes cannot be considered in Thus, a system of so-called “pendulum migrations”
isolation from the Maikop-Novosvobodnaya monuments of was formed in the steppe, when the penetration of steppe
the North Caucasus. The Maikop sites proper are earlier; they groups into the Balkan-Carpathian region ensured not only
are synchronous with Late Eneolithic groups in the steppe. the penetration of elements of the culture and genes (both
Their origin is associated with the migration of people from steppe and Caucasian-Iranian), but also further cultural
the Near East.29 Significant genetic changes also occurred relations, population flows, as well as the reverse drift of
in the Eneolithic groups at this time, and the population of culture and genes to the North Pontic area, up to the North
the steppe zone was formed by Eastern European hunter- Caucasus, where Novosvobodnaya arose. And already at
gatherers (EHG) and a Caucasian population (CHG), who the Late Eneolithic stage, the influx of TRB genes from
were genetically close to Iranian farmers and who contributed Central Europe into the steppe is possible. Similar processes
from 43% to a half of the steppe population, and this influx continued in the EBA, with the influence of the GAC and
of genes from Transcaucasia began in the Mariupol period.30 CWC in the steppe. This ensured the similarity of the genetic
But for Novosvobodnaya, scholars pointed to links with composition of the CWC and Yamnaya.39
Central Europe, which is manifested primarily in amphorae, In contrast, the situation in the Caucasus is completely
and there were attempts to connect its origin with the GAC.31 different; some kind of “Caucasian membrane” functioned
Genetic studies have indicated possible links to the TRB.32 At there, which ensured the flow of culture and genes in only
the same time, pottery with a “staining” surface, typical of one direction, from south to north. As a result, there are
Novosvobodnaya, is known in Transcaucasia, in Kakhetia, practically no flows of genes from outside in the Near East.40
at sites of Sioni type.33 Therefore, the Novosvobodnaya
complex began to form as early as the Late Eneolithic of the
steppe, and included local Eneolithic, Maikop, Near Eastern, 4. BALKAN-CARPATHIAN AREA
and Central European components.34 4.1. PRE-YAMNAYA HORIZON
As a result, the process of formation of the Yamnaya OF STEPPE INFLUENCES
culture was probably a rather complex phenomenon, which The first contacts of the Lower Danube with the steppe
is still far from being fully understood. But the events of (Skelya and Sredny Stog complexes) are dated to the second
interest to us in Europe began after the completion of this half of the 5th millennium BC, which corresponds to the time
process, since complexes with common Yamnaya features of the North Balkan complexes Pre-Cucuteni III–Trypolye
appeared there. Probably, the main actors of these events A3 to Cucuteni AB1–Trypolye B1/B2 and Gumelniţa A2–B1.
were not the Yamnaya people of the eastern areas, but the As a result, monuments of the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka
Budzhak culture, since their echoes are manifested mainly type appeared on the Lower Danube to Dobruja, represented
in it.35 At the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, in the by ocher burials on the back, contracted or extended, stone
North Pontic region east of the Prut river, Yamnaya burials fences are occasionally found. There are no settlements of
often contain vessels from Trypolye C2, Horodiştea-Folteşti, these newcomers, the number of burials is small, their area
Baden-Coţofeni and Makó, and single cremations typical is rather limited, and they existed together with the local
of Coţofeni.36 But after the penetration of the Yamnaya agricultural communities of Cucuteni-Trypolye, Bolgrad-
complex into the Carpatho-Balkan region and the formation Aldeni, Varna, Kodžadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI, and
of the CWC to the north, early A-amphorae appeared in the exchanged with them. Some steppe features penetrated the
Budzhak culture, some with features of the CWC, corded Balkan complexes of the Cernavoda I type. In the subsequent
decoration,37 and there are features of pottery from many period, these contacts were extremely limited, and only in
North Balkan cultures (Cernavoda II, Folteşti II, Makó- the last third of the 4th millennium BC pre-Yamnaya mounds
Kosihy-Čaka, Schnekenberg-Glina III, Vučedol, Vinkovci). with Baden-Coţofeni pottery appeared.41
There are also later types of amphorae. It seems that after the An early group of these kurgans on the Lower Danube
penetration of Yamnaya culture into the Northern Balkans is represented by burials contracted on their side, with
a small amount of ocher, and local ware of Trypolye C2,
28
WANG et alii 2019, 7, fig. 4.
29
ANDREEVA 1977.
Horodiştea-Folteşti and Baden-Coţofeni types. These were
30
MATHIESON et alii 2015, 500; WANG et alii 2019, 1, 3, 7, 9; ALLENTOFT bearers of the Nizhne-Mikhailovka and Kvityana traditions,
et alii 2022, 8–10. as well as local populations that borrowed these traditions.
31
SAFRONOV 1989, 227.
32
NEDOLUZHKO et alii 2014.
Moreover, in Bulgaria they appeared at the same time as
33
MUNCHAEV 1981, 50, 51.
34
REZEPKIN 2011. 38
IVANOVA et alii 2014; IVANOVA 2021, 177, 178.
35
IVANOVA et alii 2018, 102. 39
IVANOVA et alii 2018, 125–135.
36
FRÎNCULEASA et alii 2015, 80; HEYD 2016, 67. 40
GRIGORIEV 2021a.
37
See also doubts about the appearance of corded ornament in the Budzhak 41
WŁODARCZAK 2010, 299, 300; HEYD 2016, 56, 58, 59, 67; PREDA-
group from Central Europe (HEYD 2021, 389, 390). BǍ� LǍ� NICǍ� et alii 2020, 91.

Studies
in the North Pontic region, where the cultures of Nizhne- in the CWC.46 Discussing the Budzhak culture of the North-
Mikhailovka, Trypolye C and Usatovo, late Kvityana, late West Pontic area, we saw that at this time, the CWC ware
Dereivka and Sredny Stog, post-Mariupol, coexisted, and also appeared there. If we look at the map (Fig. 3), we will see
in the east Maikop and Repin Khutor.42 But in the North that these sites are concentrated in areas with vast steppe
Pontic region, some of these complexes have recently spaces between the Carpathians and the large valleys of the
been understood as the Zhivatilovka-Volchanskoe group. Dniester, Danube and especially the Tisza.
It is interesting, within the framework of this first wave, Some other features are also observed. For example,
the kurgan tradition penetrated even into the west of the in Thrace, in the area of the Ezero culture, Yamnaya mounds
Pannonian Plain in Vojvodina. These early burial mounds often contain pottery of the Coţofeni culture in Hungary,
there contain cremations related to the Baden-Coţofeni which indicates extensive links with other Yamnaya groups
tradition and corresponding ware. In addition, kurgans from the Coţofeni area.47 In Thrace and Dobrudja, the rite
appeared in Baden. These kurgans have been understood as of these burial mounds is close to the Yamnaya rite, but to
belonging to the Zhivatilovka-Volchanskoe group, although the south the cemeteries are already flat, and the process
identical materials have not been found there, but their of acculturation took place there faster.48 In Vojvodina,
presence is assumed. In Hungary, the pre-Yamnaya phase is Yamnaya mounds appeared in the late 4th – early 3rd
also dated to the second half of the 4th millennium BC. The millennium BC, and they existed until the middle of the
date of these complexes in Vojvodina is ca. 3300–3100 BC. 3rd millennium BC. Burials are often made in mounds of
In Bulgaria, it is difficult to determine the date of the pre- the earlier pre-Yamnaya horizon, they contain cremations
Yamnaya horizon, but it also ended ca. 3100/3000 BC.43 At and ware of the Vučedol culture. At the same time, there
the same time, ca. 3400–3200 BC, these groups appeared on are classical Yamnaya burials with wooden ceilings, mats
the southeastern border of Poland, in Podolia and Volhynia, and orientation to the west, but they usually lie on the
which preceded the formation of the Corded Ware cultures right side, which is typical of the previous period. In some
of the early A-horizon there.44 At the same time, there was cases, a combination of Yamnaya and Eneolithic features is
an interaction of the bearers of this tradition with Baden guessed in the position of the skeleton. But Yamnaya burials
and Globular Amphorae cultures, which belong to the same correlate with both early Yamnaya burials and burials of the
chronological horizon.45 classical stage of culture in the North Pontic region.49 This
As we discussed above, the Zhivatilovka-Volchanskoe indicates that the assimilation took place of the bearers of
complexes, in which European inclusions are widely the early kurgan tradition, which penetrated the region at
presented, partly coexisted, partly were later than the above the beginning of the last third of the 4th millennium BC, and
mentioned steppe groups in the Balkan-Carpathian region. for a long-time interaction with the original area in the east
Therefore, it is possible that their formation was a stimulus remained, which ensured the influx of cultural stereotypes
for this migration to the west. The emerging system of that arose there.
relations with the area of origins, complex interactions This rather general picture led scholars to similar
and social processes further influenced the situation in the conclusions. Archaeological evidence does not support the
steppe for a long time. This partly influenced the formation idea of a wave of horse-riding nomades who conquered the
of the Yamnaya culture, and then a new stage of larger-scale region and subjugated the local population, bringing the end
interactions between the steppe and the Balkan-Carpathian to “Old Europe” as described by Gimbutas and Anthony,50
region. and that they had a decisive influence on European
population formation.51 There was rather a very long
infiltration of relatively small groups that coexisted with the
4.2. YAMNAYA HORIZON OF STEPPE INFLUENCES
local agricultural population. This wave did not spread far,
In the late 4th – early 3rd millennium BC, in the period it covered only the Northern Balkans and the Carpathian
of cultures of Karanovo VI, Cernavoda, Coţofeni and Baden,
the Yamnaya penetration into the Balkan-Carpathian region 46
WŁODARCZAK 2010, 301–303; FRÎNCULEASA et alii 2015, 45, 49, 76,
began, associated with migrations from the North-West 77, 82, 83; KAISER/WINGER 2015, 115, 118, 120, 127, 129; HEYD 2016,
61, 62; IVANOVA et alii 2018, 118; PREDA-BǍ� LǍ� NICǍ� et alii 2020, 86–89,
Pontic region, and the formed new systems of interaction 96, 97; HEYD 2021, 385, 386; IVANOVA 2021, 186, 188, 228.
existed for a long time, until the 25th–24th centuries BC. As a 47
IVANOVA et alii 2018, 121.
result, from the Lower Danube to Pannonia, on the territory 48
KAISER/WINGER 2015, 132.
49
WŁODARCZAK 2021a, 215, 217, 220–225, 232, 235, 237, 239, 245.
of modern Serbia, Bulgaria and Hungary, typical Yamnaya 50
GIMBUTAS 1994; ANTHONY 2007. This is also supported by the fact
mounds with burials contracted on their backs, the presence that horses associated with European Corded Ware cultures do not show a
of ocher and mats spread. Currently, only the number genetic profile characteristic of the Volga-Don ancestors of domestic horses,
which suggests that the Yamnaya people migrated to Europe without horses
of mounds studied exceeds 500, and this wave was more (LIBRADO et alii 2021, 5). Actually, real evidences on horse breeding in the
numerous than the first, although a longer period should steppe appeared no earlier than the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC; for
also be taken into account. Pottery in them is represented by the Eneolithic steppe economy, horse breeding was difficult and pointless.
In addition, it is possible that the horse was domesticated in the Near East
local forms, although sometimes there is ware similar to that (GRIGORIEV 2021d). The bones of bulls, sheep and horses have been found
in burials of the Budzhak culture. But bones of wild animals, aurochs and
42
FRÎNCULEASA et alii 2015, 45, 48, 80, 82, 83. deer have also been found in an identical context. In addition, there are
43
WŁODARCZAK 2021a, 215, 217, 219, 221, 222, 230, 242, 245. traces of agriculture in these sites (IVANOVA 2021, 61–66). Therefore, most
44
WŁODARCZAK 2021b, 437, 438. likely, the horse bones belong to the wild species.
45
HEYD 2016, 54. 51
HAAK et alii 2015; ALLENTOFT et alii 2015.

Studies
sites between the Carpathians and the valleys of large
rivers with their rich floodplains created ideal conditions
for seasonal grazing by pastoralists who had no domestic
horses, as well as conditions for close interaction with the
local agricultural population (Fig. 3).
Chronologically, the appearance of Yamnaya people
coincides with significant transformations in Southeastern
and Central Europe, where the late stages of the Coţofeni,
Baden, Ezero A, Globular Amphore and Funnel Beaker
cultures were transformed into other cultures: Vučedol,
Somogyvár–Vinkovci, Glina, Schnekenberg, Livezile, Makó-
Kosihy-Čaka, Ezero B, and Corded Ware.57 Actually, this is
the basis of the idea that it was the Yamnaya culture that was
responsible for the transformations that covered the whole
of Europe.
This long process, against the background of a large
local agricultural population, conflicts with the conclusions
of paleogenetics about the massive Yamnaya migration
Fig. 3. Areas of the main cultures discussed in the text: BB – Bell
Beaker culture; CW – Corded Ware cultures; FC – Fatyanovo-Bal-
to Europe, which necessitated the search for explanatory
anovo area; YC – Yamnaya culture; BC – Budzhak culture; TRB models. Since the Yamnaya sites in Central and Southeastern
– Funnel Beaker culture; GA – Globular Amphorae culture; ZC – Europe belong to a long period from 3100 to 2500 BC, the
Złota culture. actual number of migrants from the steppe was small, there
was constant interaction with the original areas, and this
basin. This contributed to the spread of a certain cultural led to a gradual increase of the steppe genetic component.
package in the region, but also to more intensive cattle and But this did not lead to a sharp change in the culture:
sheep breeding.52 In the Carpathian Basin, the coexistence of Yamnaya culture was transformed under the influence
the Yamnaya people and local tribes (primarily the Baden and of the local substrate, since each time these inflows were
Coţofeni cultures) in different areas is assumed. It is possible small. At the same time, there must have been some area
that some kind of relationship between mountain and steppe in which this ethnic component accumulated, which cannot
communities was formed. The problem is that there are no be determined.58 Without this, it would be difficult to
Yamnaya settlements in the region. Therefore, the Yamnaya assume the spread of the language. On the one hand, the
people were either incorporated into local communities, or dissemination of ideas is impossible without the migration
they pastured their cattle in the winter and spring on the of their bearers. On the other hand, the cultural package and
plains, and in the summer they went to the mountains. It is socially significant features were spread, and this did not
indicative that the buried are represented mainly by men.53 always happen along with the spread of the language. But
The latter is also characteristic of the Budzhak culture, but in this case, we may talk about a certain colonization of new
in its burials the ratio of men and women is 2:1, while in regions, and their permanent connections with the original
northwestern Bulgaria it is 14:3, and in Alföld between Tisza area.59 However, the intrusion of Indo-European dialects
and the Carpathians – 12:3. From this, it is concluded that into Europe during this period requires evidence. We must
some specialized groups of the population were resettled.54 not forget that this was preceded by another migration
For Vojvodina, it is also assumed that the Yamnaya groups wave, which could already have brought the IE language. This
liquidated or marginalized the local sedentary communities.55 Eneolithic flow has already contributed to the penetration
Most researchers explain this penetration by a desire to of the Iranian-Caucasian genes into Europe, and the role of
develop new pastures. An additional reason is an aim to the Yamnaya people in European cultural genesis is greatly
extract copper from ore deposits located in the areas of the exaggerated. Already in the pre-Yamnaya time, the steppe
Yamnaya sites of this region, and the localization around people penetrated, interacted with the locals, formed social
the Carpathians is caused by the fact that it was the most ties, established contacts with their homeland, some of them
convenient way from the North-West Pontic area to the returned, and new groups could arrive from there, as a result
Carpathian basin.56 In my opinion, the metal did not play of which the processes of cultural genesis and the spread
such an important role in the EBA to carry out such large- of languages were extremely slow.60 This becomes apparent
scale enterprises, the problem of its supply could be more when we turn to the next problem: the formation of Corded
easily solved by exchange. The localization of the Yamnaya Ware cultures.
52
KAISER/WINGER 2015, 115, 130, 132, 136; FRÎNCULEASA et alii 2015,
84, 85; HEYD 2016, 63, 64, 65, 68, 69; PREDA-BǍ� LǍ� NICǍ� et alii 2020, 96,
97; IVANOVA 2021, 185, 284. 57
DANI 2011, 25; GERLING et alii 2012, 1098; FRÎNCULEASA et alii 2015,
53
DANI 2011, 26, 36; GERLING et alii 2012, 1099, 1107, 1109. 84; HEYD 2016, 53, 54.
54
WŁODARCZAK 2010, 301; IVANOVA 2021, 255. 58
KAISER 2016, 32, 35–37, 39, 40.
55
WŁODARCZAK 2021a, 245. 59
IVANOVA et alii 2018, 107–112; IVANOVA 2021, 184.
56
IVANOVA 2021, 258–261. 60
KAISER 2016, 33; IVANOVA et alii 2018, 101–105, 118–120.

Studies
5. CULTURAL TRANSFORMATIONS IN have caused the gene influx from the northeast revealed for
NORTHERN EUROPE IN THE 3RD MILLENNIUM BC this period (see below). However, the CWC influence in this
Previously, in the northern part of Europe, the area was more significant, which caused the formation of
dominant factor was the Funnel Beaker Culture (TRB), dated the Pamariu culture no later than the second quarter of the
from the last third of the 5th to the early 3rd millennium BC, 3rd millennium BC. And it should be remembered that CWC
which is characterized by megalithic tombs and collective already has many GAC features, which makes it difficult to
burials. Around the middle of the 4th millennium BC, on identify in mixed complexes.67
its basis the formation of the Globular Amphorae culture Rare GAC elements are also present to the south.
(GAC) began. The latter coexisted with the TRB for a very This culture penetrated into southeastern Poland by the
long time, but also with later complexes of the Corded Ware beginning of the 3rd millennium BC, which then affected the
culture (CWC). This coexistence with chronologically earlier cultural genesis of Złota and CWC.68 On the Upper Dnieper,
cultural formations, and subsequently with the Bell Beaker these are two burials in the cemetery of Turinščina near
culture (BBC), is characteristic of the CWC in all regions Smolensk (2630–2400 BC). Some features are also present
except Switzerland.61 This is partly caused by problems in the Middle Dnieper culture, which was formed ca. 2700–
of chronology, partly by the real coexistence of different 2650 BC, although in general it belongs to the CWC complex.
cultural stereotypes. It is important for us that all these Thus, everywhere in the forest zone of Eastern Europe, the
cultural groups demonstrate, albeit to varying degrees, CWC tribes played the main role in cultural genesis, but GAC
certain connections with the steppe cultures and with the elements are also present everywhere.69 However, there is an
Fatyanovo culture of the forest zone of Eastern Europe. opinion that there are no pure GAC complexes in this area,
there is an admixture of features in sites with characteristics
5.1. GLOBULAR AMPHORAE CULTURE of CWC and Neman culture, and the early CWC was the
source of amphorae.70 Actually, it was this culture that
The GAC is dated to 3500–2200 BC, although most underlay the subsequent cultural genesis of the vast area of
of the sites belong to the first half of the 3rd millennium the forest zone from the Lower Rhine to the Volga and Kama
BC.62 It was formed initially in Kuyavia, in northern Poland,
(Fig. 3).
on the basis of the TRB, but its material culture also shows
connections with the more southern Cernavoda III-Boleraz
and Baden cultures. Particularly noticeable connections 5.2. CWC CHRONOLOGY
with Baden fall on the last quarter of the 4th millennium First of all, we must discuss problems of the CWC
BC,63 which chronologically coincides with the horizon of chronology. The difficulties of this chronology are related to
the early kurgan culture in the Northern Balkans. In general, the fact that it is based on samples from unstratified burials,
the territory of culture corresponds to the TRB area, without and Bayesian statistics cannot be used; therefore, it depends
only its Scandinavian part. At the same time, TRB enclaves on the quality of the analyzes themselves, which are few
often remained in this territory. For example, in Greater in many regions, and in others the most dates are old. At
Poland, TRB groups lived at the very beginning of the 3rd the same time, the calibration curve forms a plateau at the
millennium BC.64 In Kuyavia, GAC groups existed almost beginning (2900–2750 BC) and at the end (2470–2200 BC) of
until 2200 BC, coexisting with CWC and BBC, and many its the period. As a result, the radiocarbon chronology does not
traditions survived to the Trzyniec horizon.65 fully correspond to the stages identified typologically, which
There is a tendency for GAC to spread to the east, can be explained both by defects in this chronology, and by
but this was not necessarily caused by migrations. In the the longer existence of some forms considered as early ones,
South-Eastern Baltic from the 4th millennium BC to 2200 or by the asynchrony of similar types in different areas.71
BC there was Narva culture, whose site have GAC inclusions, On the Swiss settlements dated by the dedrochronological
and there are traces of the spread of cattle breeding and method, beakers with a short neck are present from 2725
agriculture there, but these were limited penetrations of the BC, beakers with the S-shaped profile appear from 2625
early 3rd millennium BC, caused by interest in the extraction BC, and ornaments in the form of double cord with notches
of amber, started by the Narva people. This caused further under it (which are sometimes considered as a chronological
close relations with the central and western regions of indicator) are present in all phases.72 Therefore, it can be
the GAC and the appearance of amber objects there. The assumed that these signs do not work, but it is possible that
latter also appeared on the sites of Złota, CWC, and TRB, this is the local originality. Similarly, although in the Krakow-
and everywhere these complexes with amber belong to Sandomierz group 350 burials have been studied, and five
the period 3000–2700 BC. At the same time, individual phases are distinguished based on typology and stratigraphy,
migrations and marriage ties are supposed.66 The latter may they have not been reliably verified by radiocarbon dating.73
61
FURHOLT 2003, 123. 67
SZMYT 2003, 408; CHARNYAЎ� SKI/VAITOVІCH 2019, 618.
62
SZMYT 2003, 402. 68
WŁODARCZAK 2021b, 438.
63
HEYD 2016, 74. 69
SZMYT 2003, 409–412.
64
CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT 2008, 221. 70
VAITOVІCH 2020, 96, 98.
65
CZEBRESZUK 1991, 115, 116, 126; CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT 2012, 169, 71
FURHOLT 2003, 16–20, 41, 45–48, 51, 119, 121, 122; WŁODARCZAK
170. 2012, 128.
66
SZMYT 2003, p. 403, 404–408; WŁODARCZAK 2017, 316; 72
FURHOLT 2003, 62, 67.
CHARNYAЎ� SKІ/VAITOVІCH 2019, 615–618. 73
BUDZISZEWSKI/WŁODARCZAK 2011, 56.

Studies
Often the differences are not caused by chronology. Even the Alpine dendrochronology. In Switzerland, the early CWC
within Lesser Poland, there are several territorial groups phase has been dated to 2718–2675 BC, and the dates of
with specific shapes of beakers.74 Accordingly, this does not the middle phase fall within the interval of 2625–2568 BC.83
allow local chronologies to be extended to the entire CWC Therefore, it can be assumed that this older phase is close to
territory. As a result, all dates below are fairly rough. the A-horizon; therefore, it ended at ca. mid-27th century BC,
In Lesser Poland, the CWC dates fall within the interval but it is difficult to say how synchronous the A-horizon was
of 3000/2900–2300 BC, and to the north of the Carpathians, in all CWC areas. This is later than radiocarbon dates, which
the CWC ended ca. 2480 BC. Thus, CWC in Poland began is, however, a common situation.
ca. the end of Baden and for some time coexisted with the The Corded Ware Culture of Lesser Poland ended
GAC, which is confirmed by sites of the Złota type with its ca. 2300–2200 BC.84 In the pre-Alpine zone, according to
mixed forms. In parallel, in some areas, TRB populations dendrodates from Ludwigshafen-Seehalde (2418 BC), the
probably persisted.75 The early phases of the CWC in Poland CWC ended ca. late 25th century BC. In Switzerland, from the
(1, 2 in Kuyavia and I, II in Lesser Poland) are dated to ca. end of the 25th century BC, there is no dendrodate, since the
2800–2600 BC, moreover, phase I, synchronous with the lake settlements were abandoned due to climate change. In
pan-European A-horizon, can be dated to 2700 BC (after Holland and Baden-Württemberg, the CWC persisted until
which more active blurring of GAC groups and their infusion the late 3rd millennium BC, coexisting with the BBC, but
into CWC began), the younger phase (subphase IIIA) – ca. everywhere except Northern Europe the upper CWC dates
2600/2550–2450/2400 BC, and the final – ca. 2400–2200 are not yet reliable.85 Previously, the beginning of epi-corded
BC, when coexistence with the BBC is visible. The Złota cultures in southeastern Poland (proto-Mierzanowice) was
culture is formed within the framework of phase I, and phase dated to the period 2300–2200 BC, early Mierzanowice to
II of CWC, with which it is also synchronous, is formed partly 2200–2020 BC, and classical Mierzanowice from 2000 BC.86
under its influence.76 On the Middle Elbe – Saale, the CWC Later, based on AMS dates, the proto-Mierzanowice phase
dates are in the interval 2700–2200/2000 BC, in Southern was dated to 2450–2300 BC, and the early Mierzhanovice
Germany 28/27 centuries BC – ca. 2200/2000 BC, and in phase to 2300–2100/2050 BC. Thus, its beginning is close
Bohemia 2620–2200 BC. The dates in the Netherlands are to the appearance of the Bell Beaker traditions, but then
rather rough: 2900/2600 – 2400/2300 BC. Thus, the time this culture coexisted with the later CWC complexes, which
slope of dates from east to west is evident, with earlier dates increases the uncertainty of the final dates of the latter. In
in Poland.77 This corresponds to a gradual decrease to the the early part of this last period, the BBC of Lesser Poland
west of the proportion of amphorae, which were borrowed gradually disappeared, and the late part of the period
from the GAC. It is assumed that already in the period 3050 corresponds to the Veselé type.87
– 2900 BC early Corded Ware cultures extended to the Rhine,
and from 2700/2600 BC they become the dominant factor
from the Rhine to the Volga (Fig. 3).78 5.3. ZŁOTA CULTURE
In Switzerland, according to dendrochronology, the The Złota culture appeared in the north of Lesser
CWC is dated from ca. 2700 BC to 2420/2417 BC.79 Given Poland simultaneously with the early phase of the CWC and
these dates and those of Southern Germany (ca. 2725 is dated to 2900/2800–2650/2550 BC. It combines features
BC), it has been suggested that this spread took about 200 of GAC, CWC, and even Baden and TRB. The ceramic forms
years.80 But, in my opinion, the process was more rapid. In of GAC and CWC are indistinguishable in this case (Fig. 4/7),
the Alpine zone, the CWC dendrodates actually show the since they demonstrate an intermediate position, and form
interval of 2725–2450/2420 BC, but radiocarbon dates a single series.88
do that of 2880–2200 BC.81 In principle, this reflects the Therefore, the culture is considered as a mixed
usual situation of older and wider intervals of radiocarbon complex from traditions of the GAC and the pan-European
dates. There are dendrodates from Lower Saxony: 2844– A-horizon of the CWC. However, at the end of the 4th
2737 BC, which is older than in Switzerland, however, the millennium BC, the GAC penetrated into this area, and the
chronological difference is not so great. Subsequent studies Yamnaya culture appeared on its borders. As a result, kurgans
have proposed a later interval for Lesser Poland, 2800/2700– occurred in the early complexes of the CWC, in Złota and
2400 BC,82 which fits into the general trend of gradual shift the late GAC of this region. There are also TRB features in
of radiocarbon dates towards dendrochronology. Therefore, the culture, and southern impulses are quite clearly visible
this process of the CWC expansion could be quite fast. The in the Baden-Coțofeni, late Trypolye and Usatovo forms
chronology of individual stages is less clear if we link it to (imprints of a double cord in the upper part, characteristic
of early Thuringian amphorae, bowls, etc.). This complex
74
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 79, 80. appeared earlier than the beginning of the CWC formation,
75
FURHOLT 2003, 22–26, 32, 34, 41.
76
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 123, 136; FURHOLT 2008, 18–22; WLODARCZAK
respectively, the latter process does not correspond to its
2017, 277, 285.
77
FURHOLT 2003, 42, 48, 55, 76, 90, 100; WŁODARCZAK 2012, 133. 83
WLODARCZAK 2012, 131.
78
HEYD 2021, 393, 395. 84
HÄUSLER 2014, 98.
79
EBERSCHWEILER 1999, 39, 40; GROSS-KLEE 1999, 55. 85
WŁODARCZAK 2012, 134, 136.
80
FURHOLT 2003, 119. 86
FURHOLT 2003, 35, 36.
81
FURHOLT 2003, 57, 63, 64; SUTER 2008, 335; WŁODARCZAK 2012, 87
GÓRSKI et alii 2013, 113–117.
131, 132. 88
WŁODARCZAK 2001, 108; FURHOLT 2003, 31; WŁODARCZAK 2006,
82
BUDZISZEWSKI/WŁODARCZAK 2011, 56. 159; FURHOLT 2008, 1, 4, 11, 15; WŁODARCZAK 2017, 300.

Studies
traditional understanding as a fast spread of the A-horizon niche in Poland. But we should pay attention to the fact that
traditions. It was more complex and multidimensional.89 the catacombs and burials in niche in the late 4th millennium
A specific feature of Złota is the presence of sexual BC were known in the Zhivotilovka-Volchanskoe group (Fig.
differentiation of burials, which is characteristic of the CWC 1/2).97 The catacombs of Poland probably cannot be explained
and absent in the Yamnaya culture, but men lie on the right by any single process, since they differ typologically. The
side with their heads to the NW, and women on the left, with CWC catacombs are T-shaped, and they are closer to the
their heads to the SE.90 Thus, the faces of the buried were steppe ones. At the same time, elements of the Middle
turned to the southern sector, like those in CWC and the Dnieper culture appeared in southeastern Poland; therefore,
Zhivotilovka-Volchanskoe group, which previously appeared in this case, migration to the region from the east, from the
on the southern border of this region. Taking into account border area of the Middle Dnieper and Catacomb cultures,
the features of Baden and Tripolye, we may assume some is assumed. But the Złota catacombs are more diverse, and
southern impulses in the culture formation. in previous times such a construction was known only in
Another parallel with them is the burials in pits with the Zhivotilovka-Volchanskoe group. Therefore, all Polish
catacombs originated from the Pontic zone, but as a result of
niches. They are characteristic of the CWC in Lesser Poland,
two different processes.98
where more than 120 have been identified. They appeared
at the beginning of phase II (when the influences of GAC
and Złota are noticeable), but they are also typical for the 5.4. YAMNAYA FEATURES IN CWC
next phase III, existing until the end of the culture (these There are old and generally accepted ideas that the
phases can be combined into the CWC group Krakow- Yamnaya culture played an important role in the CWC
Sandomierz). In general, they are dated to 2600–2400/2300 formation, changing the tradition of collective burials in this
BC. But the earliest pits with niches in Złota belong to area. A number of common features made this reconstruction
the period 2900–2800 BC. In fact, these are catacombs possible: kurgans, individual contracted burials oriented
consisting of shafts, from which a small corridor leads to along the W–E line, simple pot-shaped or beaker-shaped
an oval or round burial chamber (Fig. 4/2). The entrance ware with corded or carved decoration, simple spiral-shaped
to the chamber is closed with a partition made of clay or copper ornaments, ornaments made from animal teeth
wood. The buried lie contracted on their side and on their and bones, a significant proportion of cattle breeding, and
back, with orientation along the lines W–E and N–S (with the rarity of settlements. But such types of ornaments are
the latter direction predominating), but their face is turned widespread in this period, and there are no exact ceramic
to the shaft entrance. Men usually lie on their right side, and parallels. There are many fundamental differences: in the
women on their left, while in all types of burials, including Yamnaya culture there is no sexual differentiation of the
those buried on their back, there was a desire to turn their buried, no amphorae and battle axes. In addition, the early
face to E.91 In these CWC and Złota catacombs scholars see phases of cultures are relatively synchronous. Therefore,
similarities to the North Pontic ones.92 Therefore, they are some similarities may be caused not by the CWC formation,
considered as eastern influences, and they are really close but by its contacts with the Yamnaya area of the Carpathian
to the Pontic catacombs and catacomb structures of the Basin.99 In addition, a number of features that are considered
Eastern Mediterranean. There are also hypotheses about the as steppe in the CWC (for example, kurgans) appeared in
local origins of this rite, since apart from the shape of the Europe as early as 4000 BC. Finally, there are no large mounds
structures, there are no other similarities with the Catacomb in the CWC, common in the Yamnaya culture, the mounds
culture of the Pontic region, moreover, chronologically, are usually small.100 Ukrainian scholars list many Yamnaya-
they appeared much earlier, in the Yamnaya period.93 The Catacomb features in the CWC: catacombs, arrowheads with
MBA catacombs of the Pontic region, indeed, cannot be a concave base, some other objects, contracted on the back
considered as a parallel. But the catacombs of Jericho in the burials; however, they also indicate that there is no Yamnaya
Eastern Mediterranean may not be considered too, although ware in the CWC complexes, and most possible contacts
typologically and ritually they are very close.94 However, are dated to the late Yamnaya period, to the end of the 3rd
they belong to the EB IV period, which in the traditional millennium BC. Even at this stage, no reliable relations may
chronology is dated to 2400/2300–2000 BC. In radiocarbon be found.101 An important difference is that the Yamnaya
chronology, its beginning was previously estimated at ca. burials contain very few grave goods. It is fundamental,
2500 BC,95 but thanks to studies of earlier and later layers that the Yamnaya complexes are characterized by contracted
in Jericho, the interval has been corrected to 2300–2000 BC, burials on the back, and the CWC people were buried on the
which is closer to the traditional chronology.96 Therefore, side, burials contracted on their back are very rare.102 But just
these catacombs could not be the prototype of pits with the burials on the side are characteristic of the Zhivotilovka-
Volchanskoe group. The presence of axes in the CWC burials
89
WŁODARCZAK 2008, 513–519, 524, 531, 532; 2021b, 438, 440.
90
HÄUSLER 2014, 88. 97
MANZURA 2016, 155.
91
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 53–55, 58, 59, 61, 63, 98, 99, 105, 121, 162; 2017, 98
WŁODARCZAK 2008, 519–522; WŁODARCZAK 2021b, 441, 446, 449,
302, 303. 450.
92
KLOCHKO et alii 2014, 391, 392. 99
BUCHVALDEK 1986, 494; KLEIN 2017, 366, 367, 373; WŁODARCZAK
93
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 57, 106, 135, 159; 2017, 297. 2017, 306, 307; IVANOVA et alii 2018, 133; HEYD 2021, 387.
94
KENYON 1971. 100
WŁODARCZAK 2010, 301, 305.
95
REGEV et alii 2012, 560, 561. 101
KLOCHKO et alii 2014, 391–398; KOS’KO/RAZUMOV 2014, 399, 400.
96
NIGRO et alii 2019, 25, 28. 102
WŁODARCZAK 2010, 306.

Studies
Fig. 4. Corded Ware cultures: 1 – Kalbsrieth grave (Kalheim) (HEYD 2021, fig. 9); 2 – Złota culture, Samborca, gr.
23 (WLODARCZAK 2006, rys. 27); 3 – Pełczyska, gr. 50/2002 (BUDZISZEWSKI/WLODARCZAK 2011, Abb. 5: 1);
4 – Flintbek (HEYD 2021, fig. 5: 3); 5 – Hijken, gr. I (FURHOLT 2003, Taf. 202: 4); 6 – Erfurt, med. Acad. (Furholt
2003, Taf. 79: 7); 7 – Złota culture (WŁODARCZAK 2006, rys. 44: 3); 8 – Krusza Zamková (Heyd 2021, fig. 5: 5); 9
– Bleckendorf (FURHOLT 2003, Taf. 73: 5); 10 – (WŁODARCZAK 2006, rys. 44: 14); 11 – Großbrembach, Furborn-
er Linde, gr. 2/73 (FURHOLT 2003, Taf. 87: 6).

Studies
and their absence in the Yamnaya burials is often cited as 5.5. THE FORMATION OF CWC
a difference. In fact, in the Budzhak culture, axes are well There is an early (ca. 2900/2800–2750 BC) so-called
represented. And there is one axe from Baranove 1/10 (Fig. A-horizon of CWC, with common forms over large areas,
2/3), which, in my opinion, is close to the A-axes of CWC, with specific gracile axes with a round cross-section and a
but parallels in Ezero and Yunatsite are also suggested to it, butt, a blade extended downwards, a reinforced hole for a
and it is assumed that the presence of axes in the early phase handle, often with a “casting seam”; A-amphorae, A-beakers,
of the Budzhak culture is explained precisely by the Balkan pots with wavy rollers; rectangular pits under mounds with
influence.103 individual contracted burials with sexual differentiation,
There is another indicative feature: the early CWC when men were buried on the right side with their heads
horizon is characterized by single burials under mounds, to the west, and women on the left side with their heads to
as in the Late Eneolithic cultures of the steppe, while in the east, and the faces of both were directed to south (Fig.
the westernmost Yamnaya group, the Budzhak, the central 4). This set is presented differently in individual regions
burial is often supplemented by peripheral burials arranged (in particular, A-axes originated, possibly, in Jutland, from
in a circle. where they spread to Poland, and they are absent in other
Many scholars believe that the CWC is not connected regions), and the only universal type is tall and gracile
neither with the Yamnaya culture, nor with the horizon of S-shaped beakers, decorated with horizontal ornaments
the early kurgan cultures, and it was formed from the TRB, made by cord and notches on the upper part of the vessel.109
Flint axes (Fig. 4/3) in Lesser Poland are absent from burials
Swedish battle axes cultures, and Danish Single burials.104
of the early phase, they appeared only from phase II, and
Since sexual differentiation is an important indicator, there
up to phase IIIa their shape does not change significantly.110
were attempts to find the local roots of this phenomenon.
Thus, they appeared later than polished A-axes.
In Southern Germany and Sweden, in the early horizon of
the Single Burials culture (since 3000/2900 BC) contracted There is a serious problem in understanding the CWC
male burials without pottery appeared, oriented along the formation. Since this coincides with the penetration of the
W–E line. In Southern Germany the buried lie on the right Yamnaya culture into Europe, it is generally accepted that
side, and in Sweden on the left. In the TRB cemeteries its role in the CWC formation was significant. However, the
of Walterniengburg and Bernburg (between Leipzig and CWC ceramic complex contains many local features of the
Magdeburg) there are right-sided burials without ceramics TRB and GAC (beakers, amphorae, corded ornamentation).111
and left-sided ones with ceramics. Therefore, it has been At the same time, there is an assumption that amphorae
suggested that this rite appeared already in the TRB.105 came from the Baden traditions, and already GAC had some
Perhaps that is why Włodarchak considers this custom as contacts with the steppe. At the same time, in southeastern
a return to the European Eneolithic traditions of the 5th – Poland, the Złota culture played a decisive role in the CWC
early 4th millennia BC.106 In these cemeteries, this situation is formation, and Baden influences were carried out not
indeed recorded, but there are no anthropological definitions, directly into the CWC, but through Złota.112 Judging by the
and occasionally burials under kurgans are found. In addition, radiocarbon dates and characteristics of cultural features,
these cemeteries were excavated as early as the beginning the CWC formation and the emergence of the kurgan rite
of the 20th century, and there are many problems with in it began in the southeastern part of the area, and was
dating. On the basis of typological and statistical analysis, associated with local substrates and impulses from the
the material from this region has been divided into several Carpatho-Danubian region, the subsequent integration of
features from different areas, and not with the spread of
phases, and these cemeteries belong to the latest phases of
traditions of the A-horizon from the central areas of the
TRB-MES IV/V, which are dated to ca. 3300–2800 BC.107 Thus,
culture.113
they are synchronous with the appearance in the Balkan-
Carpathian region of the early burial mounds of the late Thus, the main features of the early CWC cannot be
Eneolithic. Therefore, in my opinion, these materials allow us borrowed from the Yamnaya or Usatovo cultures. Despite
to assume very limited contacts between the Late Eneolithic widespread misconceptions on this topic, they have Central
steppe groups and the TRB groups in Germany, but not the European roots, and the CWC area is quite close to the
local roots of this rite. Heyd drew attention to the similarity TRB area. A feature of this era was the emergence of a wide
of this rite with the rites in the Zhivotilovka-Volchanskoe network of communications,114 probably migrations, but
complexes,108 and taking into account the presence of some nothing reminds of the coming of conquering warriors
burial mounds, this similarity may not be accidental. This,
109
FURHOLT 2003, 13, 119, 120; WŁODARCZAK 2006, 156; LITVINENKO
probably, explains the limited presence of cultural elements 2006, 228–231; WŁODARCZAK 2017, 293, 294, 306, 307; HÄUSLER 2014,
and genes of the TRB in the North Pontic area up to the North 87, 98.
Caucasus. However, the CWC formation occurred somewhat 110
BUDZISZEWSKI/WŁODARCZAK 2011, 57, 58.
111
BUCHVALDEK 1986, 495; FURHOLT 2003, 119, 124, 125; 2008, 20;
later and was associated with other processes. HÄUSLER 2014, 83, 88, 98; HEYD 2016, 75.
112
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 82, 90, 159; 2008, 522, 525.
103
IVANOVA 2021, figs. 2.10, 168, 176. 113
WŁODARCZAK 2010, 309, 318.
104
HÄUSLER 2014, 114; KLEIN 2017, 373. 114
These broad links are clearly visible in all regions. For example, in Lesser
105
FURHOLT 2003, 119, 124. Poland, from the very beginning of this period and later, there is amber
106
WŁODARCZAK 2017, 305. from the north, flint from Volhynia, and pottery comparable to that of the
107
MÜLLER 2001, 321, 362, 363, 365, 366, 358, 360, 365, 426, Abb. 261. Baden circle. But CWC ware from other areas is also very common, although
108
HEYD 2021, 390. the reason of this is unclear (WŁODARCZAK 2017, 301, 318, 321).

Studies
from the steppe, although some parallels with the steppe there is a transition from the collective TRB burials to single
(mounds and contracted burials) may be found, and there burials without ceramics with a W–E orientation.123 For
is evidence of the Yamnaya penetration into Central Europe. Jutland, this period is determined by ca. 2900–2800 BC, and
Therefore, when explaining this phenomenon, the main in Northern Germany and Holland ca. 2800 BC, but this is
ideas are reduced to the spread in the local socio-economic based on older dates with strong deviations.124
and cultural environment of new social relations and a new In Southeastern Poland, the CWC occurred ca.
ideology brought from the steppe. M. Furholt associates 2900–2800 BC, transforming from GAC under the influence
their appearance with the complex of single burials (SGBR), of impulses of the earlier CWC from neighboring areas, as
which, according to paleogenetic data, correlates with the well as the Złota culture. Initially, it coexisted with Baden
steppe ancestors, but in general it is assumed that many and TRB, and ca. 2700–2600 BC local CWC groups were
rapid changes occurred without population movement.115 formed, existed until 2350–2250 BC. It is noteworthy that
The general process of this time was a sharp reduction there are very few early amphorae of type AI associated
in the number of settlements (which is considered as an with kurgans, amphorae with handles on the shoulder
increase in mobility), although not in all areas. In particular, predominate. There are generally few materials of phase I
settlements are well presented in Switzerland, as well (pan-European A-horizon) in this area,125 which is explained
as in the coastal areas of Poland, the Eastern Baltic, the by the preservation of the Złota traditions. Kurgans were
Netherlands and southern Norway.116 Since that time, present in Poland from the very beginning, and were most
for example, Neolithic economy (cows and sheep) spread characteristic of the southeastern areas, as well as the early
throughout Poland, but there is no evidence of farming, period (2800–2600 BC). Then their number is reduced and
possibly due to the lack of settlements.117 flat cemeteries spread. In 2400–2300 BC mounds completely
In my opinion, these changes were impossible without disappear. Skeletons in the graves more often lie on their
migrating people, although in some cases this is not excluded. back, less often on their side, are oriented along the W–E
However, even the spread of lifestyle and fashion could be line, and sexual differentiation is observed: males on the
associated with the spatial spread of some ethnic group. In right side, females on the left. To the north, in Greater
particular, the spread of forms such as beakers is seen as Poland, Kuyavia and Pomerania, links with Central Germany
the spread of collective drinking and eating customs. In the are more expressed and, to an even greater extent, with
same vein, Hayd sees the spread of dark polished ware with the Single Burials culture of the northern CWC province.
flutes of the Cernavoda III and Boleraz types, as well as the There were also contacts with GAC.126 It is possible that the
penetration of Bratislava-type bowls from the Danube into presence of burials on the back in the southeast is associated
Greece. At the same time, local everyday forms of ware were with contacts with the Yamnaya population. But such
preserved everywhere.118 In fact, we see similar processes features as mounds, burials on the side facing south with
in Greece in the EH period, and they mark just the spread sexual differentiation, find parallels in the Late Eneolithic
of the Greeks, and the very slow assimilation of the local steppe kurgans.
population, lasted for many years.119 Migrating collectives In the later CWC phases, orientations of men to
could well be bearers of fashion and the new lifestyle. It is N (NW) and women to E (NE) appeared. In this period, in
also interesting that in the CWC of Southeastern Poland the BBC, Unetice, Straubing, Singen, etc., N-S orientations
there is a disproportion between the number of male and are characteristic, which is associated with the Bell Beaker
female burials, which is typical for Yamnaya burials in the influence. At the same time, the principle of bipolarity was
Carpatho-Danube basin,120 which, as in the case of the preserved. It is also characteristic of the Battle axes culture
Yamnaya people of the Carpathian Basin, may indicate that in Sweden and the northern group of the Middle Dnieper
predominantly men took part in the migrations. culture (men on the left side oriented to the north, women on
It is indicative that in the initial phase of this period, the right side oriented to the south), and this transformation
single burials under mounds spread everywhere, the so-called can be considered as a relatively late feature.127 In Poland,
SGBR complex, which formed the Corded Ware cultures. the CWC at stage IIIC transformed into proto-Mierzanowice
Judging by the rite and genetics, it was connected with the and is partially synchronous with it, since contacts are traced
steppe, but not with the Yamnaya culture, which lack sexual from 2350/2300 BC. The origins of this new culture are
differentiation.121 This complex is culturally differentiated. probably to be found in the southwest, in Eastern Silesia and
In Germany, these are the Kalbsrith graves with kurgan Moravia.128 Probably, this was also caused by the Bell Beaker
burials on the right side, oriented to the west.122 In Jutland, pressure.
Therefore, in my opinion, in the early CWC stages
115
FURHOLT 2003, 129; WŁODARCZAK 2006, 156, 157, 160; HEYD 2016, there are features that were characteristic of the late
78; WŁODARCZAK 2017, 286, 306, 307; HÄUSLER 2014, 84, 93, 113;
FURHOLT 2019; 2020.
Eneolithic steppe complexes: small mounds, single burials
116
WŁODARCZAK 2017, 287, 289, 325; FURHOLT 2019, 118;
CZEBRESZUK et alii 2019, 1; CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT 2008, 221, 222. 123
FURHOLT 2003, 119.
117
WŁODARCZAK 2017, 309, 310. 124
118
HEYD 2016, 71–74. 125
HÄUSLER 2014, 90, 92; WŁODARCZAK 2001, 108, 109; WŁODARCZAK
119
GRIGORIEV 2022. 2006, 82, 89, 90, 91, 159, 160.
120
WŁODARCZAK 2010, 306. 126
WŁODARCZAK 2017, 278, 284, 293–298.
121
HÄUSLER 2014, 86; NORDQVIST, HEYD 2020, 83, 85. 127
HÄUSLER 2014, 94, 94.
122
HÄUSLER 2014, 114; HEYD 2021, 392. 128
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 118, 161; WŁODARCZAK 2021b, 450, 451.

Studies
contracted on their sides with sexual differentiation, not consistent with such a huge “Yamnaya” contribution to
facing the southeastern sector, burials in niches. But in this population. In addition, this contribution is somehow
south-eastern Poland, contacts with the Yamnaya people higher in the north than in the south. Maps of genetic
are recorded already at an early stage, which become more distances with modern populations show that almost the
expressed at the developed stage, and at the late stage with whole of Europe is comparable to the CWC, and a moderate
BBC. At the same time, the processes of cultural genesis similarity to the Yamnaya is observed only in Eastern Europe.
were extremely slow, and early and late cultural traditions Therefore, there were certainly changes in the gene pool
coexisted for hundreds of years. Therefore, for sure, the caused by migrations, but their connection with Yamnaya
spread of languages was also extremely slow. is not proved. The actual gene flow was more complex.
Rather, populations genetically close to the Yamnaya, which
5.6. CWC GENETICS have not yet been identified by paleogenetic studies, could
have migrated.132 Besides, “the spread of steppe-related
This situation is well illustrated by genetic studies. ancestry throughout Europe was predominantly mediated
The modern population of Europe is genetically different through groups that were already admixed with GAC-related
from the first farmers who came from Anatolia, who show
farmer groups of the eastern European plains”.133 All this is
similarities only with the peoples of the Near East, and
consistent with archaeological data indicating the spread of
to a lesser extent with the Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes and
the CWC from Poland and its formation on the basis of local
Croats. In other populations, their genetic heritage was
Neolithic substrates, primarily GAC, as well as an earlier
eroded by later processes. There is a pattern of increasing
steppe component.
the proportion of this Anatolian component from the Baltic
(30%) to the Mediterranean (90%). Two other components, These are common processes in Europe, but if we
the earlier hunter-gatherers of Europe and the population of narrow the focus of consideration and turn to Central Europe,
the European part of Russia and Siberia, are more expressed where CWC was formed, then there were three genetically
in the eastern regions.129 An indicative pattern is observed: different groups in the previous time. Most intriguing
Anatolian genes dominate sharply in the Early Neolithic is that the Globular Amphore people, who according to
populations, but then, within the Neolithic, the genes of archaeological data seems to have some contacts with the
European hunters and gatherers grow.130 This means that steppe cultures, are genetically comparable to the former
the assimilation of the local population took place, but it Neolithic populations, and do not carry the steppe genes
was extremely slow. We may again assume from this that the that appear only in the CWC.134 With the formation of the
spread of new languages was slow too. latter ca. 2900 BC, steppe ancestors appear in the region,
accounting to 75% of the population, which is distributed
The situation changed in the Late Neolithic and the
in Europe. However, they, judging by the Y-chromosomes,
beginning of the Bronze Age, when the genetic composition
are not comparable with the Yamnaya proper. Therefore,
of Europeans quickly drifted towards the modern one. The
it is impossible to connect them with the penetration of
similarity of the introduced genetic component with the
the Yamnaya culture, although they were some people
gene pool of the Yamnaya culture in the Eastern European
from the east. Then in Central Europe there was an influx
steppes was revealed, and a conclusion was made about
of genes from the northeast, primarily female, which is
the massive Yamnaya migration to Europe.131 This opinion
has become dominant, and this explains the spread of explained by some social processes.135 As a result, a genetic
the Indo-Europeans from the steppe (which, by the way, pool is formed, similar to CWC and Yamnaya, but with an
the authors of these works did not insist on), although a admixture of other sources. At the same time, there are no
closer examination shows that there are many significant archaeological differences between burials with and without
contradictions. Compared to the Neolithic population, the steppe ancestors.136 Therefore, a very small group of CWC
proportion of western hunters continues to grow (hence, people may be considered as direct descendants of the
they were not fully assimilated until that time), but the Yamnaya people, but the majority are rather descendants of
proportion of eastern hunters and gatherers increases other earlier steppe groups. And we see one more process:
sharply, which is typical for the Yamnaya culture. As a result, the number of steppe ancestors among the Corded Ware
the CWC gene pool is 73% common with the Yamnaya gene people increases later, which may be explained either by a
pool. However, these are synchronous neighboring cultures, repeated impulse or by the preservation of relations with
therefore, this similarity goes back to some unclear common the original area.137 This is clearly seen in the example of
substrate. In addition, this similarity is determined on the individual regions: in southeastern Poland, the proportion
basis of autosomal markers, and if we turn to haplogroups, of steppe ancestors is higher than in the population in Lower
the situation changes. Among Yamnaya and CWC people, 132
BALANOVSKY 2019, 168, 169; BALANOVSKII 2015, 303–309.
the most common (60%) haplogroups are R1a and R1b, 133
ALLENTOFT et alii 2022, 12.
which are widely presented in modern Europe, but the first 134
TASSI et alii 2017, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8.
haplogroup prevailed among CWC people, while the second 135
Above, we discussed the intense connections of Central Europe with the
northeast through the amber trade. But one should also take into account
haplogroup prevailed among the Yamnaya people, which is the obvious movement of the early CWC to the northeast. And this reverse
flow of genes indicates the preservation of relations with the original areas,
129
BALANOVSKII 2015, 288, 289, 293. which we repeatedly see in other materials.
130
TASSI et alii 2017, 6; PAPAC et alii 2021, 1, 2. 136
PAPAC et alii 2021, 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10.
131
HAAK et alii 2015; ALLENTOFT et alii 2015. 137
HEYD 2021, 387, 398.

Studies
Poland.138 Perhaps this is due to active interaction with the origins of the Indo-Europeans. The Maikop phenomenon
Yamnaya culture already after the CWC formation, which is also points to the penetration of the southern component
also reflected in archaeological sources. into the steppe. Migrations of the steppe tribes in the 5th
An important pattern: the steppe genes were brought millennium BC to the northeast of the Balkan Peninsula were
to Central Europe primarily by men, and this migration insignificant and did not affect the cultural situation in the
had a much lesser effect on the mtDNA of Bronze Age region at all. Therefore, we cannot suspect any changes in the
Europeans. In addition, it affected only the eastern part of ethnic picture of Europe behind this process. A noticeable
Central Europe, being little reflected in the west in the Bell penetration occurred in the last third of the 4th millennium
Beaker populations.139 In the west and in southern Poland, BC, when Late Eneolithic steppe complexes penetrated into
the maternal lineages (mtDNA) of the CWC populations are the north of the Balkans and the Carpathian basin, and a
associated primarily with the local Neolithic people, while system of interaction of these migrants with the original area
in the Eastern Baltic the proportion of steppe genes is quite in the North Pontic region was established, which spread
noticeable, which indicates that women also participated in up to the North Caucasus, and contributed to formation of
the CWC migrations in these regions.140 This picture is quite Novosvobodnaya. This population interacted with the GAC
consistent with the disproportion between male and female and TRB tribes living north of the Carpathians, as well as
burials noted by archaeologists. But this also indicates that with the Northern Balkan groups, which ensured the flow
in the formation of the eastern CWC groups, including of some cultural traditions and genes to the east. However,
Fatyanovo, a large role should have been played by the initially these processes were not intensive.
southern groups, including those from the Yamnaya area in The next stage of interactions began at the turn of the
the Carpathian basin. Actually, on the basis of archaeological 4th/3rd millennia BC, when the Yamnaya cultural-historical
materials, we have more reason to connect Fatyanovo with area formed from the Carpathians to the Urals. Everywhere
the southern regions of Poland. this was the result of integration of local Eneolithic groups,
However, there is a paradox for which no explanation but in the Pontic region the influence of European cultures
has been found: against the background of the absence of is tangible, one may allow some movements of the eastern
specific lineages of the Yamnaya culture in southern Poland, proto-Yamnaya tribes to the west and new impulses from the
genetic affinity with the Afanasievo population of southern Caucasus or the Near East. In many ways, probably, similar
features were caused not only by this, but also by the spread
Siberia has been revealed.141 However, the Afanasievo culture
of new social systems and wide communications. Therefore,
was not formed as a result of eastward Yamnaya migration,
there is no guarantee that the Yamnaya tribes everywhere
the real parallels of its ceramic complex are not Yamnaya,
spoke similar dialects.
but the late Eneolithic complexes of the Volga region.142 This
fully corresponds to the interval of radiocarbon dates of People in the western flank of this cultural association
the Afanasievo culture: 3700–2500 BC.143 It may be a bit (first of all, the Budzhak culture) most intensively contacted
older due to the reservoir effect and old dates, but in any the European world, and it is from here that new, more
case, a significant part of it falls on the pre-Yamnaya period. massive migrations to the north of the Balkans and to the
Therefore, this paradox may be explained by the relationship Carpatho-Danube basin began, which started already at an
of the earlier Eneolithic substrate. early stage of the culture. It can be assumed that just this
led to the displacement of the first wave of migrants to the
Another feature that I would like to draw attention
north (more precisely, the population formed as a result
to is the slow change in the genetic profile. This is especially
of their contacts with the local people). This explains the
evident in the Neolithic, but even during the formation of
paradox that the CWC formation coincides in time with the
the Corded Ware people, genetically different groups were
Yamnaya penetration into Southeastern Europe, but the
preserved, and their relative unification occurred throughout
Yamnaya features and genes are poorely presented in the
the entire CWC period.
CWC. It was formed on the local GAC and TRB basis, but
included significant elements of the pre-Yamnaya kurgan
5.7. GENERAL PROCESSES IN CENTRAL EUROPE cultures and Baden. The role played by the traditions of
IN THE 3RD MILLENNIUM BC single burials under kurgans in the CWC formation, the
Thus, on the basis of archaeological and paleogenetic connection of these migrations (fixed by both archeology
evidences, we can reconstruct the cultural processes that and genetics), mainly with the male part of the population,
took place in the steppes of Eastern Europe, in Southeastern allows us to suppose the formation of social structures with
and Central Europe in the 4th – 3rd millennia BC. The some dominance of these migrants. But more important
Eneolithic population of the steppe contained up to half was the expansion of relations and the constant feeding
of the genes of the Iranian-Caucasian ancestors, which is of this process from the east. When these groups moved
quite consistent with the hypothesis of the Near Eastern to the northeast, connections with the original areas were
preserved. In any case, this process was very slow. We have
138
LINDERHOLM et alii 2020, 1, 7. no right to represent it in such a way that the newcomers
139
SCORRANO et alii 2021. immediately, within 100–200 years, spread some Indo-
140
JURAS et alii 2018, 7, 8; LINDERHOLM et alii 2020, 1, 4. European language throughout the European continent,
141
LINDERHOLM et alii 2020, 6, 8.
142
MOCHALOV 2008, 38, 40. and this must be taken into account when discussing the
143
MOLODIN et alii 2014. dialectal division of the IE languages in Europe.

Studies
This second, more massive wave, had another and on the Volga to the southwest, which is considered as a
consequence. The appearance of these populations in the chronological sign reflecting the eastward movement. There
Danube region was preceded by the cultures of the Baden are traces of fire in the pits, possibly occasional cremations.151
Circle, spread from the Lower Danube to Lake Constance. In In general, the Fatyanovo rite is seen as descending from
the late 4th – early 3rd millennia BC, similar cultural features the CWC rite.152 R.A. Litvinenko showed that in case of the
also appeared in northwestern Anatolia, and at that time bipolar rite, it was fundamental to turn the face in a certain
some GAC features appeared in southeastern Europe, but the direction, and among the Fatyanovo people, the faces of
steppe cultures did not participate in this drift.144 Migrations men and women were turned mainly in the southern sunny
to Anatolia were carried out in two streams, at the end of the direction, which was also characteristic of the Corded Ware
Chalcolithic and in the EBA, at the stage of Kumtepe I, and people.153
Troy II.145 As a result of the first flow, cultural features with The ware has perfect CWC parallels (Fig. 5/2–5). It
parallels, first of all, in the northeastern part of the Balkans is represented by amphorae (in some instances spherical)
(Varna, Gumelniţa, Salkuţa, Mariţa, Veselinovo, Cucuteni with high or low necks, with and without handles; pots with
A) appeared in Anatolia, although some parallels are also an S-shaped profile, beakers, bowls; often the surface is
noted in Serbia.146 But the impulse from the same region polished. Important types are axes, both polished stone and
contributed to the formation of the EH I culture in Greece.147 flint (Fig. 5/6–8). And both groups are typologically related
The statement of this fact will be extremely important for to the CWC axes. Other objects made on flint plates and
subsequent ethnic reconstructions. flakes are also common: knives, chisels, scrapers. Pendants
made of bird bones and animal teeth have wide parallels,
6. FATYANOVO AND BALANOVO CULTURES including those in the CWC. Three bone hammer-shaped
6.1. FATYANOVO ORIGINS pins were found, one of which has parallels in the Corded
Ware culture of Europe (Figs. 4/9; 5/14), as well as a horn
The easternmost groups of Corded Ware cultures are
pin with a nail-like head. Occasionally there are beads and
Fatyanovo and Balanovo (Figs. 3, 5). The first is situated from
pendants made of amber.154
the upper reaches of the Dvina along the entire basins of the
Oka and the upper Volga. The second is located in the east, The complexes contain a series of metal objects:
in the area where the Kama flows into the Volga. There is a an axe, a spearhead with an open socket, pendants in 1.5
generally accepted opinion that they were formed as a result revolutions with a forged shield, sometimes with a rib on the
of migration of CWC people to the east, the steppe tribes outer side (so-called willow-leaf), pendants made of double
did not participate in their cultural genesis, and it was this wire forged at the ends, simple pendants made of narrow
migration that led to the spread of cattle breeding in the forest plates or round wire, “eyeglasses-shaped” pendant, tube-
zone of Eastern Europe.148 This has been reliably confirmed shaped pendants, tubes coiled in a spiral from copper tape,
by genetic analyses. Despite the fact that Fatyanovo pottery ornamented cuff-shaped bracelets made of wide plates (Fig.
is found in the settlements of the local Neolithic Volosovo 5/9–13). It is assumed that the metal appeared only at a late
culture,149 its people, like the Yamnaya people, did not stage of the culture.155 These are typical European objects
play any role in the origins of Fatyanovo people, who were of the A1 period, the so-called Blech- und Drahtindustrie,
genetically very close to the CWC population.150 especially those with a willow-leaf shield. The “willow-leaf
industry” is characteristic of the CWC.156
The Fatyanovo monuments are mainly represented by
flat cemeteries, in which the buried contracted on their side Thus, the whole complex of material culture and
are laid according to the principle of sexual biritualism: in funeral rituals of Fatyanovo and Balanovo have perfect
the Yaroslavl Volga region, men usually lie on their right side parallels in the Corded Ware cultures of Europe, which
with their heads to the west and southwest, women on their indicates migration. It is difficult to say whether the
left side, with heads to the northeast. In all cases, the faces Fatyanovo people saved communications with their original
of buried turned south and southeast. In the west, in the area, as we saw above in other examples. Based on the finds of
Moscow-Klyazma group, orientations to the west prevail, amber in the burials, one can only assume communications
with the Eastern Baltic.
144
HEYD 2016, 54, 55, 75. This did not involve Baden populations as a
whole. This culture began to form ca. 3700/3650–3500 BC, but then spread
widely up to Lake Constance, forming enclaves. However, even its main
area is shifted to the west relative to the possible area of migration to the
southeast. It is also indicative that at this time, ca. beginning of the 3rd
millennium BC, there was a disintegration of Baden and the formation of
post-Baden cultures (HORVÁTH/SVINGOR 2015, 20, 21). Perhaps this was 151
In previous times, there was no such ritual in the region. It is possible
caused by the Yamnaya penetration into the Danube region. that its occurance was caused by the participation in the migration of some
145
MELLAART 1971, 371–386. small groups from the Danube region.
146
PARZINGER 1993, 264–266, ÖZDOGAN 1991, 218–220; YAKAR 1991, 152
KRAINOV 1987, 59, 64, 73; KRAINOV/GADZYATSKAYA 1987, 6, 11,
248, 253; GRIGORIEV 2002, 352–354, 356. 12; HÄUSLER 2014, 112; NORDQVIST/HEYD 2020, 65, 69; BOL’SHOV
147
MARAN 1998, 157, 428; ALRAM-STERN 2004, 154, 155; 2014; 2010, 5.
GRIGORIEV 2022. 153
LITVINENKO 2006.
148
KRAINOV 1987, 65, 74; NORDQVIST/HEYD 2020, 65, 66, 79, 85; 154
KRAINOV 1987, 65–68; KRAINOV/GADZYATSKAYA 1987, 15–19,
HEYD 2021, 403. 30–34; NORDQVIST/HEYD 2020, 72, 74, 76, 77.
149
KRAINOV 1987, 61. 155
KRAINOV 1987, 70; KRAINOV/GADZYATSKAYA 1987, 35, 36.
150
NORDQVIST/HEYD 2020, 80, 81; SAAG et alii 2021, 1, 6, 8, 9. 156
KLOCHKO/KLOCHKO 2013, 41.

Studies
Fig. 5. Fatyanovo culture: 1, 3, 5 – Nikultsinsky cemetery; 2, 4, 14 – Voronkovskiy cemetery; 6–13 – Volosovo-Dani-

lovsky cemetery (after KRAINOV/GADZATSKAYA 1987, fig. 28a: 33; 28b: 16, 28; Table 5: 7, 11; 53: 1, 7; 57: 18; 63: 27;
66: 4, 21, 30, 36, 51).

Studies
6.2. FATYANOVO AND BALANOVO CHRONOLOGY CWC, but they are typical in later phases.166 Since these are
Earlier, the beginning of the Fatyanovo culture was not typical for Fatyanovo, handles are located in the middle
dated from the turn of the 3rd/2nd millennia BC.157 Ideas part of the body, ornaments from groups of vertical lines
about the periodization of culture and particular types of are known on amphorae, Fatyanovo beakers are relatively
objects (e.g., axes, ware) are not based on stratigraphy, but on low, although sometimes they have a high neck, Fatyanovo
the idea that it spread from west to east. Therefore, western forms are closer to CWC than to GAC, but we can assume
local groups formed earlier, while eastern (Balanovo) later, their relatively early position. However, in the pan-European
and this became the basis for distinguishing stages.158 But A-horizon, the CWC beakers have high proportions and the
the identified stages, in my opinion, are speculative and S-shaped profile. Although cylindrical-necked beakers are
confusing. For example, the appearance of high-necked also found, they spread later, as did funnel-necked beakers.
vessels with the S-shaped profile and corded decoration At the same time, in many areas, ceramic forms of the
is attributed to the early Ivanovogorsky stage, and the A-horizon could be preserved for a long time, and there are
appearance of amphorae to the next Nikultsinsky stage,159 significant regional differences, which makes it difficult to
but the amphorae are present in the earliest CWC complexes. attribute the complexes to specific stages.167 In general, in
my opinion, Fatyanovo is a later occurrence relative to the
Despite these problems, it is assumed that the culture
A-horizon, together with the Krakow-Sandomierz group of
was formed no later than other CWC. The end of its existence
Lesser Poland, when flat cemeteries spread, but this cannot
is unclear, probably the last centuries of the 3rd millennium
be too separated from the early horizon.
BC.160 Unfortunately, for this period it is difficult to clarify
the dates using metal objects: many of these types existed Dating of axes is more problematic, since
for a long time from the Eneolithic to the Bronze Age.161 It their typology in Fatyanovo is chronologically poorly
was assumed that since elements of the early A-horizon of substantiated.168 Axes typical for the A-horizon (with the
the CWC are poorly represented even in Western Ukraine “casting seam” and the elongated blade)169 are known in both
and the Middle Dnieper, they cannot be expected in the the Fatyanovo and Balanovo cultures.170 However, these axes
Fatyanovo culture at all.162 This assumption is confirmed are also present in the relatively late CWC phase IIIa, but
if we turn to more detailed comparisons of the Fatyanovo from this phase, burials oriented along the north-south line
complex. began to spread, and a little later, vessels with straight walls
(in Poland and Germany they are dated to the interval of
In Lesser Poland, rare burials of Phase I are associated
2620–2200 BC), which is not typical for Fatyanovo. Likewise,
with kurgans, and flat cemeteries appeared at the beginning
type I axes (similar to the Fatyanovo hammer-shaped axes)
of Phase II, although kurgans are known in phase III.163 This
are known in the early horizon, but existed for a long time,
is close to the Fatyanovo rite, but in this region, from the
disappearing in Poland only at the beginning of phase IIIB.171
III phase, mainly burials oriented along the N–S axis, as
In Lesser Poland, from phase II, Silesian axes of types B1 and
well as burials in niches, spread. And in this phase, ceramics
B4, with a hole in the middle part, spread.172 They have direct
appeared that are different from Fatyanovo. Thus, basing
analogies in the Fatyanovo axes.173 In the later CWC phase
on the burial rite, it is possible to date the beginning of
IIIB in Poland, axes with a displaced hole appeared,174 which
Fatyanovo from the beginning of phase II to the beginning
also have parallels in Fatyanovo. Therefore, it is possible
of phase III of the CWC.
that, like the finds of amber, this is a sign of the preservation
Many Fatyanovo ceramic forms were present both in of relations with the original area, but this assumption
the CWC and GAC complexes. But GAC beakers are usually must be tested on ceramic material. Against this hypothesis
low and those in CWC are high. Handles on GAC amphorae are is the fact that in this phase of the Polish CWC, amphorae
more often located on the shoulder or neck, while in CWC on with handles on shoulders and vessels with straight walls
the body, which is considered as an important distinguishing appeared,175 which are not found in Fatyanovo, but present
feature. At the same time, ornaments in the form of groups of later in Abashevo. However, it should be borne in mind that
vertical lines, which are also known in the Fatyanovo culture, if the A-axe is a universal type, many other types may have
are characteristic of the eastern GAC group. In the well- regional, and not just chronological features.176 Flint axes
stratified CWC sites in Switzerland, metopic ornamentation in Lesser Poland appeared only from phase II: a tetrahedral
is found from the earliest phase.164 In Lesser Poland, in rare section with wide blades, amorphous finds, often with a
materials of phase I amphorae are usual, with handles in the trihedral section, there are two dihedral forms. The surface
greatest expansion of the body, and ornaments of grouped treatment is often incomplete, and only the blade had been
vertical impressions are found on them.165 Amphorae with polished. From phase IIIb, thick axes with a cross-section
2–4 handles on the neck are sometimes found in the early
166
FURHOLT 2003, 32.
157
KRAINOV/GADZYATSKAYA 1987, 38. 167
FURHOLT 2003, 13, 29, 30, 37, 39, 119; WLODARCZAK 2017, 318.
158
KRAINOV 1987, 63, 72, 73; NORDQVIST/HEYD 2020, 68. 168
NORDQVIST/HEYD 2020, 74.
159
KRAINOV/GADZYATSKAYA 1987, 39, 40. 169
FURHOLT 2003, 13.
160
NORDQVIST/HEYD 2020, 65, 69. 170
See KRAINOV 1987, 66, fig. 25; BADER/KHALIKOV 1987, Fig. 37.
161
For more details, see GRIGORIEV 2019. 171
FURHOLT 2003, 30–32, 122; WŁODARCZAK 2006, 118.
162
BUCHVALDEK 1986, 490. 172
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 91, tab. XXII.
163
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 98, 105, 160; BUDZISZEWSKI/WŁODARCZAK 173
See KRAINOV 1987, fig. 25.
2011, 56. 174
164
FURHOLT 2003, 67; 2008, 11, 14. 175
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 109, 117.
165
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 90. 176
WŁODARCZAK 2017, 313, 314.

Studies
tapering towards the neck and more carefully worked bipolar funeral rite: women on the left side with their heads
surfaces spread.177 The Fatyanovo flint axes are close to the to E, men on the right, with their heads in the meridional
axes of phases II and IIIa.178 Therefore, basing on axes, as direction. The ceramics are quite comparable with those of
well as ceramics, we may date Fatyanovo not earlier than the Fatyanovo: globular and turnip-shaped amphorae with a
beginning of the II phase of the CWC. narrow and low neck, sometimes with handles, bomb-shaped
It is more difficult to determine the original area. vessels with a round body and high neck, typical of the early
Sometimes, based on the geographical principle, the Middle period, bowls. Stone inventory is also quite comparable:
Dnieper culture is included in it, but I see no typological drilled stone axes (including type A) and wedge-shaped axes,
grounds for this idea. It would be most logical to see the knives, scrapers, mattocks, arrowheads, etc. Copper objects
roots of Fatyanovo in the Eastern Baltic, where the corded are represented by spearheads, axes, styloid arrows, adzes,
culture of Rzucewo formed on the A-horizon basis, but in it awls, needles, pendant rings, earrings, and tubes.184
the bipolar orientations of the buried are different: women There is a problem with the Balanovo sites
on the left side to N, men on the right to S, and its ceramics understanding. Some scholars believe that it should be
are incompatible with Fatyanovo ones. More comparable are considered as a territorial culture within the Fatyanovo-
low beakers and globular short-necked amphorae from the Balanovo community. Their similarity is especially evident
CWC in Belarus.179 A-axes, known in Fatyanovo, are present when comparing the Fatyanovo sites with those of the early
only in Jutland and Poland. In addition, in Poland, after the Balanovo stage.185 However, the identification of stages is
early phase, handles on amphorae are not typical, which also not convincing. An analysis of the Balanovo and Atlikasy
does not fit into the general trend of the CWC.180 Handles materials shows their significant similarity, as well as the
are extremely rare in Fatyanovo, so the roots of Fatyanovo similarity with the Fatyanovo ones. Therefore, simultaneous
should be sought precisely in Poland and associated with penetration into the forest zone of Eastern Europe by the
the end of phase I or the beginning of phase II, immediately Fatyanovo, Balanovo and Atlikasy groups is supposed, and
after the end of the European A-horizon. At that time, some the latter differ mainly in the presence of kurgans,186 which
processes were taking place in Poland, due to the influences also took place in the original area of Europe. And this point
of the Złota and Globular Amphorae cultures.181 of view seems to me quite legitimate, since the presence
of archaic amphorae, as well as A-axes, makes it possible
This dating is also confirmed by radiocarbon analyses.
to assume the synchronous appearance of the Fatyanovo
Phases I, II in Poland fall within the interval of ca. 2800–2600
and Balanovo cultures. Nevertheless, it is likely that the
BC.182 Taking into account the fact that there are very few
Balanovo culture existed for a long time, and survived until
sites of Phase I, the transition between these phases should
the Abashevo time, when in Eastern Europe there was a
be dated to ca. 2750–2700 BC. In the Fatyanovo culture of
series of new impulses from Central Europe associated with
the western areas, the dates are divided into two groups:
the Corded Ware cultures, but also with a new factor that
older (2750–2500 BC) and younger (2300–1900 BC), and it is
appeared in Europe, the Bell Beaker culture.
assumed that young dates are the result of laboratory errors.183
Thus, the formation of the Fatyanovo culture started shortly
after the end of the CWC A-horizon. However, if we link the 7. BELL BEAKER CULTURE
Fatyanovo beginning to the Alpine dendrochronology, then 7.1. THE BELL BEAKER ORIGINS
its probable date, taking into account the above reservations The Bell Beaker Culture (BBC) is a completely different
about the synchronization of the end of the early phase of cultural bloc. It was formed ca. 27th century BC in the west
the CWC in Switzerland with the end of the pan-European of Iberia, where it had a local cultural and genetic basis, and
A-horizon, will be after the mid-27th century BC. But at this in the period 2600–2400 BC it distributed widely along the
stage it is still too unreliable. Atlantic and Mediterranean coasts to the Lower Rhine and
southern France, and up the Rhone to Switzerland (Fig. 3).
6.3. BALANOVO As a result, contacts between the bearers of this culture and
In the Middle Volga, in the area where the Kama flows the CWC people began in the North and North-East.187 Based
into it, Balanovo culture (close to Fatyanovo) is localized, on dendrochronology, early maritime beakers appeared on
the Upper Rhine in Switzerland ca. 2500 BC, and according
represented by settlements, flat cemeteries and kurgans,
to the dendrodates of the Wädenswil settlement ca. 2571/69
and it is assumed that the kurgans appeared in it only at
BC.188 Thus, this movement was fast, and it determined the
the end of the early Balanovo stage, which was previously
situation of the 24th – 22nd centuries BC in many areas.
dated from the late 3rd – early 2nd millennia BC, and the next
stages (Atlikasy, Osh-Pando and Khulasyuch) were dated up In Poland, the BBC spread since ca. 2400/2300 BC.
to the 9th century BC. The culture is also characterized by the There are two enclaves: in the basins of the Oder (Silesia)
and the Vistula (Little Poland). A classic BBC set appeared:
177
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 91; BUDZISZEWSKI/WŁODARCZAK 2011, 57,
60. 184
BADER 1987, 76–82, fig. 37.
178
See KRAINOV 1987, fig. 26. 185
KRAINOV/GADZYATSKAYA 1987, 40, 42; BOL’SHOV 2010, 4, 5.
179
HÄUSLER 2014, 101, 103, 107, 108, 110, Abb. 9, 12, 14. 186
BOL’SHOV 2010, 6–10.
180
FURHOLT 2003, 119, 121. 187
WŁODARCZAK 2012, 134, 136; HEYD 2016, 78; HEYD et alii 2018, 4, 7;
181
WŁODARCZAK 2006, 99. HEYD 2021, 398, 399, 403.
182
WLODARCZAK 2017, 285. 188
HEYD 2021, 401; EBERSCHWEILER 1999, 39, 48, 49; GROSS-KLEE
183
KRENKE 2019, 114. 1999, 60; SUTER 2008, 336, 339.

Studies
fundamentally new ware, bronze daggers, stone wrist- for which additional data have recently been received.
guards and bone V-perforated buttons, etc. However, the Bohemia’s BB samples show continuity with the CWC, but
funeral rite can be viewed as a modification of the CWC rite, these are only three female samples. In the late BBC (since
as it demonstrates a gender dichotomy. However, it differs 2400 BC), an increase of genes characteristic of the Middle
from the CWC by a double negation of the previous criteria: Eneolithic is recorded. Thus, the genetic contribution from
the former association of the man on the right is replaced by the West, as we might assume from the western roots of
the position of the man on the left side with an orientation the culture, is absent. The population of the pre-classical
to the north. The women are oriented to the south and Unětice culture was formed on the late BBC basis, but
lie on the right side. In southern Poland, migration from for the beginning of the EBA, a powerful gene flow from
Moravia and Bohemia is supposed to be the reason for the the northeast is revealed, which is associated with the
appearance of this complex, and this is also evident from Y-chromosomes lineages. The classical Unětice culture
different anthropology. In Northern Poland, the region’s retains the former diversity of lineages presented in pre-
traditional links with Northern Germany and Jutland are classical Unětice and local Eneolithic populations.194 Thus, at
more visible, and there is a smooth evolution of the former the regional level, no influx of western genes is found either,
CWC groups. At the same time, the Iwno culture formed and the influx of genes from the northeast at this time is of
in northern Poland, which reflects the features of the BBC, interest, since Unětice influence is manifested in this period
Single Burials culture and, to a lesser extent, of the Unětice in the late BBC and the Iwno culture in Poland. From this we
culture. In addition to flat cemeteries, there are kurgans.189 can conclude that the situation of relations with the original
Since that time, settlements reappeared in Poland in those area was quite typical for the entire period. It is indicative
areas where they were not represented in the CWC, but these that in Poland there was a genetic break between the CWC
settlements are small, reflecting small families, and possibly and the Bell Beaker people. The BBC population in southern
seasonal in nature.190 Poland is closer to the BBC population in Central Europe,
And here again we are faced with extremely slow which marks the migration from this region.195
rates of cultural assimilation. In northern Poland, even in
the second half of the 3rd millennium BC, the enclaves of the 8. ABASHEVO
GAC, CWC and the Single Burials culture are preserved. From
The Abashevo culture occupies large areas, and it
the middle of the period (ca. 2300 BC) the influence of the
is divided into Middle Volga, Don-Volga (mainly in the
Unětice culture is clearly manifested in Silesia, and in Lesser
Middle Don), and Ural Abashevo. There are ideas about the
Poland coexistence with Mierzanowice. But in general, here,
formation of Abashevo in the Middle Don, from where the
as elsewhere in the east, the BBC ceased to exist earlier, ca.
culture spread to the Middle Volga, and at a later stage shifts
2300/2200 BC, giving way to Mierzanovice culture, and in
to the Volga-Vyatka interfluve. But during a long time in
the very south Unětice culture.191
most regions, the variants of this culture are synchronous.196
In my opinion, there are no grounds for such judgments,
7.2. THE BELL BEAKER GENETICS since most of the Don Abashevo sites are represented by
Additional information about the processes during late types that appeared at the end of the Sintashta culture
this period is provided by paleogenetic data. After the and belong to the early Srubnaya Pokrovsk period. Its
discovery of “steppe” genes not only in the CWC population, formation is associated with the eastern impulses of the Ural
but also in the BBC,192 it began to seem that this marks Abashevo and Sintashta cultures. The Ural Abashevo culture
the spread of the steppe culture to the west, which made is secondary in comparison with the Middle Volga culture,
it possible to associate this with the spread of the Indo- although it coexisted with the latter for a long time. But it is
Europeans. However, the steppe ancestors are characteristic difficult to judge the synchronization reliably since there is
of the Bell Beaker people to an incomparably lesser degree. no internal Abashevo chronology.197
The BB people in Iberia were genetically close to the preceding Therefore, when discussing the Abashevo origin,
local populations, as well as the people of this culture in the the problems of the Middle Volga Abashevo should be
northern regions inherited genes of local people. Therefore, discussed. There are almost no settlements of this culture,
migrations in the case of the spread of BBC in continental it is represented by kurgans with burials contracted on their
Europe are excluded. But in Britain, with the coming of the back, oriented to the E and SE. Under the kurgans there are
BBC complex ca. 2450 BC there was an almost complete fences or ditches. Ceramic set is represented by bell-shaped
change of population. And in this case, the spread of this vessels and bowls, small angular vessels with an outcurved
tradition is associated with a powerful migration.193 The rim, jars with vertical walls. Abashevo has a rich set of metal
situation in Central Europe is of fundamental importance, objects, especially ornaments, which includes: rosette-
shaped plaques, “eyeglasses-shaped” and flattened silver
189
MAKAROWICZ 2003, 137, 138, 143, 145, 152; CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT grooved pendants in 1.5 revolution, rings, tubular and fluted
2012, 157, 158; HÄUSLER 2014, 96; WŁODARCZAK 2017, 276, 279, 296,
297, 308.
pendants. Bracelets in cross-section are round, quadrangular,
190
MAKAROWICZ 2003, 143; WŁODARCZAK, 2017, 326.
191
MAKAROWICZ 2003, 151, fig. 13; CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT 2012, 158, 194
PAPAC et alii 2021, 6–10.
170; WŁODARCZAK 2017, 286; HEYD et alii 2018, 6. 195
LINDERHOLM et alii 2020, 5, 7, 8.
192
HAAK et alii 2015, 207, 210, 211; MATHIESON et alii 2017, 10. 196
PRYAKHIN/KHALIKOV 1987, 130; BOL’SHOV 2003, 91; 2008, 1267.
193
OLALDE et alii 2018; SCORRANO et alii 2021. 197
SOLOV’EV 2000, 62.

Studies
Fig. 6. Pottery of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture and of the late Bell Beaker culture in Central Europe (after MIMOKHOD
2022, fig. 4).
triangular grooved, various wire rings with curved ends, awls Because of the lack of settlements, the stratigraphic
and plate knives. Flint objects are represented by scrapers position of Abashevo is not clear. It is assumed that at an
and arrowheads of the shapes known in the Corded Ware early stage Abashevo coexisted with the late Volosovo,
cultures.198
198
PRYAKHIN/KHALIKOV 1987, 129; BOL’SHOV 2003, 89–91; SOLOV’EV 2000, 63, 65, 66.

Studies
Balanovo and Atlikasy cultures.199 However, areas of the last the Abashevo chronology, but it can be assumed that the
two cultures coincide with the Abashevo area, so Abashevo beginning of the Abashevo is synchronous with the later
has a later chronological position relative to the Fatyanovo- BBC complexes of Central Europe.
Balanovo sites.200 We see a fairly detailed similarity in metal ornaments.
The ideas always dominated about the local formation There are many types common to Abashevo’s and Central
of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture on the Fatyanovo- European metalworking: “eyeglasses-shaped” pendants,
Balanovo basis, although there were also rather vague pendants in 1.5 revolution with unforged grooved ends,
ideas about a western impulse, since Abashevo differs from small shell-shaped plaques, flat plaques, bracelets with
Fatyanovo both in ritual and in ceramics. In recent years, the round cross-section and pointed ends, spiral rings, rounded
works of R.A. Mimokhod show the connection of the Middle and semicircular plaques with a punch ornament and holes,
Volga Abashevo culture with the Bell Beaker culture of Central spiral and tube-shaped pendants, combined pendants, a
Europe, where a large number of similar features have been part of which is smooth and another is twisted into a spiral,
revealed. First of all, this is a specific kurgan rite with pillar pendants with a reverse loop, spiral rings with a curl at the
fences around the burial site and burials contracted on their end. A similar combination of these objects in the costume is
back, but there are no burials with sexual differentiation indicative, which included headbands, represented by strips
typical for the BBC. In Eastern Europe, contracted burials of fabric or leather with small copper ornaments. At the
on the back are known in the much earlier Yamnaya culture, same time, stone wrist-guards typical for the BBC did not
but the position of the legs is different. In the BBC, burials appear in Abashevo (Fig. 7).206
on the side are typical, but in the Czech Republic, southern Basing on ceramics it is rather difficult to determine
Germany, and, to a lesser extent, in the southern half of the area where the Abashevo ceramic tradition could come
Poland, burials on the back are known, and with a similar from, since the Abashevo ceramics have typical features
position of the hands; in Moravia, circular post fences are common to the BBC (bell shape, metopes, single-row zigzags
also known. The only difference is that the cemeteries in and horizontal lines), but in my opinion, the ware in Lesser
the BBC are flat.201 However, in reality, mounds with ring Poland have little in common, in Northern Poland (due to
ditches are found in the BBC of Central Europe. In particular, relatively elongated proportions) too, and the forms from
although flat cemeteries predominate, mounds are found in Silesia are closer. In addition, the northern Bell Beaker
burial groups A and B of Moravia and Lower Austria; but in group is distinguished by the presence of settlements with a
groups which are regarded as later (C–E) they are unknown.202 small number of burials, which is not typical for the Middle
A combination of flat and kurgan cemeteries is also known in Volga Abashevo. Although chronological differences should
the Iwno culture in northern Poland.203 probably also be kept in mind, as in Poland there is the
There are many parallels in ceramics. First of all, these evolution from taller and thinner beakers to lower ones too.207
are the most typical bell-shaped vessels, vessels with a high In this sense, the Abashevo forms are closer precisely to the
expanding neck and a rib in the lower third of the body, late BBC or post-Bell-Beaker forms; a connection with the
pots with a short bell-shaped neck and a rib in the central BBC of the northern zone is unlikely.
part of the body, low beakers with a sharply expanding neck We may exclude Southern Germany from
and a rib in the lower part, and various types of jars. The consideration, where a series of EBA Adlerberg, Neckar,
ornaments and the technique of their application are similar. Upper Rhine, Ries, Singen, and Straubing groups are formed
Metope ornaments are especially remarkable (Fig. 6).204 In on the BBC and CWC basis.208 They have minor parallels in
Moravia and Lower Austria, the BBC stages (A, B, C, D) are Babino, but they are united with Abashevo only by some
distinguished based on typological considerations, but they metal objects common to all of Central Europe.
are poorly documented by stratigraphy. Ornamental motifs,
R.A. Mimokhod notes that the Abashevo ritual
identical to those in Abashevo, are more typical for stages
and ceramics belong to the Eneolithic BB traditions, and
A and B of the Eneolithic, and less so for stages C and D of
metalworking to the Br A1 period, which determines
the Eneolithic/EBA transition. On the other hand, group A is
their chronology. This is supported by a comparison of
characterized by high beakers, in group B the beakers become
radiocarbon dates (2200–2000 BC for the Middle Volga
lower, and there is a trend towards further development of
Abashevo and 2200–2150 BC for the BB/EBA transition in
more and more low forms. In group A kurgans appeared,
Central Europe), synchronizing it with the cultures of the
existing along with flat cemeteries in group B, and they
Unětice circle; and the proto-Unětice phase “Reinecke A0”
disappeared in other groups.205 All this is rather vague, one
dated from 2300–2200 BC, preceded the Abashevo culture.209
can assume a greater similarity of Abashevo’s features with
In fact, the situation with the Abashevo dates is very
group B, but it cannot be ruled out that behind these groups
complicated (a small number of dates, especially AMS dates,
there are not only chronological, but also some social or
many dates have been obtained many years ago), and a more
cultural differences. Therefore, this cannot be the basis for
careful approach allows us to place the beginning of the
199
BOL’SHOV 2008, 1266.
Middle Volga Abashevo in the interval of 2128–1959 BC, and
200
SOLOV’EV 2000, 68; KUZNETSOV 2003, 86.
201
MIMOKHOD 2018a; 2022, 123–128, 138. 206
MIMOKHOD 2022, 130, 132, 139.
202
METZINGER-SCHMITZ 2004, 65, 141–149. 207
See MAKAROWICZ 2003, 146, 147, fig. 8, 9; CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT
203
MAKAROWICZ 2003, 143. 2012, 160, 161, 165, fig. 3, 4, 9, 10.
204
MIMOKHOD 2022, 128–130. 208
LIßNER 2004.
205
METZINGER-SCHMITZ 2004, 157, 160, 236, Abb. 63, Taf. 41b. 209
MIMOKHOD 2022, 130, 134, 135.

Studies
Fig. 7. Copper ornaments of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture and late Bell Beaker culture in Central Europe (after MIMOKHOD 2022,
fig. 5).

Studies
Tab. 1. Abashevo metal objects having parallels in the metal of different periods of the Central European Bronze Age
Types Late Eneolithic A0 A1a A1b A1c A2a A2b A2c B
Absence of ornaments in the form of willow leaf + + + + +

Simple rings of wire + + + + + + + + +
Spiral pendants + + + + + + + + +
Tube-shaped pendants + + + + + + + +
Grooved pendants in 1.5 revolutions + + + + + +
Grooved pendants in 1.5 revolutions with a reverse loop + +
Bracelets of wire + + + + + + + +
Spiral finger rings and bracelets + + + + + + + +
Short spiral bracelets + + + + +
Neck rings + + + +
“Eyeglasses-shaped” pendants + + + + +
Hemispherical platelets with two holes + + + + +
Diadems + + + + + + +
its end to ca. 1944–1823 BC.210 Thus, the beginning of the the Middle Volga Abashevo proposed by A.V. Epimakhov,
Abashevo culture should be placed within the A1 phase. It and it is possible that we may put this into a single process.
is more difficult to match this with specific sub-phases since However, the appearance of Unětice objects in Poland during
the number of types we can compare is very small. Simple this period may also be explained by the relations caused by
rings and bracelets made of wire, tube-shaped pendants, as the amber trade.214 In addition, in Abashevo ceramics there
well as spiral pendants, rings, bracelets do not have a dating are few features comparable to those of Iwno, except for
potential, since they existed in Europe from the Eneolithic ornaments common in the BBC: zigzags, metopes, vertical
to the end of the Br A phase, sometimes in the next phase and horizontal lines.215 At the final stage of the BBC, pottery
B (Table 1). It is indicative that willow-leaf-shaped objects with “barbed wire” ornamentation appeared in Poland, which
that existed in Central Europe up to subphase A1b inclusive survives until the Trzyniec horizon.216 This ornametation is
are not characteristic of Abashevo. Double-hole plaques and not typical for Abashevo. Therefore, we may date a possible
grooved pendants in 1.5 revolution appeared from subphase impulse before the beginning of this final phase. The absence
A1b, existing until the end of the EBA, but grooved pendants of high beakers in Abashevo indicates the time of the late
with a reverse loop are known in complexes of subphases A1c BBC or post-Bell-Beaker cultures. But this problem requires
and A2a. From subphase A1c, “eyeglasses-shaped” pendants more detailed study.
also appeared. Diadems do not allow to specify the dating, Stone wrist-guards and bone V-perforated buttons
since they are dated in Central Europe from subphase A1a characteristic of the BBC survive after 2300 BC only in the
to A2a. On these grounds, the migration of the Bell Beaker Unětice area up to 2000 BC.217 They appeared in Babino, but
people and the beginning of Abashevo was dated to the they absent in Abashevo. Perhaps this is caused not by the
beginning of the A1c subphase, as well as the beginning of later chronology of Abashevo, but by the more northerly
Babino culture.211 But, in the case of Abashevo, the number original area. However, the question of both the original area
of compared types is not enough for reliable conclusions. and the lower date remains problematic.
Therefore, although Abashevo is synchronized with Lola,
No less problematic is the reason for this migration.
and therefore with Babino,212 there are no reliable grounds
R.A. Mimokhod explains this by the global climate crisis
for complete synchronization of the initial phases.
and aridization ca. 2200 BC.218 But slow processes of climate
Central European migration to the Middle Volga had to deterioration cannot cause unexpected migration. Societies
be realized through the territory of Poland. It is noteworthy try to adapt to it. Usually migrations are associated with
that in the final phase of the Iwno culture (2050/2000 – abrupt, even short, changes. On the other hand, under
1800 BC) in Northern Poland, there were Unětice influences, conditions of general aridity, such short-term deterioration
which are expressed in the appearance of some metal forms could have been more destructive, but it is rather difficult to
(daggers, adze-axes, rings with ears, bracelets, and pins identify them from archaeological evidence. Therefore, this
with loop-shaped head).213 This is close to the beginning of
214
CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT 2012, 169.
210
EPIMAKHOV 2020. 215
MAKAROWICZ 2003, 138.
211
GRIGORIEV 2019. 216
CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT 2012, 166, fig. 11.
212
MIMOKHOD 2013, 269. 217
HEYD et alii 2018, 6.
213
MAKAROWICZ 2003, 137, 138. 218
MIMOKHOD 2018a; 2022, 136, 137.

Studies
Fig. 8. Areas of Fatyanovo, Balanovo and Abashevo cultures.
crisis could not be the impetus for migrations, but it could rather, in the Balanovo area (Fig. 8). There is no reliable
create conditions for this. evidence that the end of Fatyanovo is close to the beginning
Some later impulses are also possible with the further of Abashevo. There must have been a chronological gap
development of the Abashevo culture. In particular, burials between them. They are quite different cultures, and some
extended on the back are known in the later Abashevo of the similarity in the ornaments on their ware was caused by the
Middle Don, which is usually associated with the very early common Central European origins.
Eneolithic traditions of the region. However, it is impossible In the same period, the formation of Babino culture
for chronological reasons. It is noteworthy that such burials took place. This was the result of direct migration of the post-
are known in the Upper Rhine group in southwestern Corded Ware tribes from Central Europe, which interacted
Germany, dated to phase A1 and the beginning of phase A2.219 with the local Late Catacomb substrate.221 The date of this
Therefore, it is possible that these burials of the Don reflect migration is determined by the beginning of the A1c phase.222
some later European relations, not necessarily with this At an early stage of the culture, the binary opposition
group, which is characterized by the standard rite of burial of the buried is preserved, but the faces are turned to the
on the side.220 north, not to the south, as in the case of the CWC. But on
I would like to emphasize one more aspect of the the Volga, in the Alekseevsky III cemetery, belonging to the
problem. Indo-European reconstructions widely use the Volsk-Lbishche type, formed under the influence of Epi-
opinion that the Abashevo culture was formed on the Corded cultures of Central Europe, two groups of burials are
Fatyanovo basis. But the Middle Volga Abashevo was formed, distinguished, one of which is represented by contracted left-
219
LUTTEROPP 2009, 344. 221
LYTVYNENKO 2013.
220
LIßNER 2004, 4. 222
GRIGORIEV 2019.

Studies
sided sceletons with an eastern orientation of the head, and languages. The Yamnaya’s contacts with the Eastern Corded
the second by right-sided ones with a western orientation. In Ware people, who were already Indo-Europeans, lead to the
this case, we also see the standard for the CWC facing south.223 isolation and spread of dialectal ancestors of the Germans,
Sites of the Volsk-Lbishche type have been found Slavs and Balts, and on the Upper Dniester of the Celts and
in the forest-steppe Volga-Urals. They are represented by Italics. The Funnel Beaker substratum also took part in the
settlements and flat cemeteries. Ceramics with thickened formation of the Germans, and the Tripolye substratum
rims and combed ornaments have no previous analogues was also involved in the formation of the Balts and Slavs.
in the region. Other finds include large “eyeglasses-shaped” The Fatyanovo culture is formed from the Middle Dnieper
pendants; spiral pendants with forged willow-leaved or culture and other CWC and GAC groups, and its movement
spiral-wrapped ends; platelets with holes; moon-shaped to the east, to the region of the Baltic river-names, means
pendants; pendants in 1.5 revolutions; knives, and an adze. the separation of Balts. The Yamnaya culture of Hungary
Axes of the Fatyanovo-Balanovo type were found. These sites marks the separation of pre-Celtic and pre-Italic dialects,
are synchronized with Poltavka and partly with Abashevo, and contact with the BBC contributed to the spread of
and it is believed that they were formed as a result of the Celtic languages to the west. The emergence of Abashevo
impact of the Corded Ware cultures of Central Europe on the is associated with the Yamnaya-Poltavka cultural bloc,
local substrate.224 However, this problem has been extremely and ideas about the formation of Sintashta on the basis of
poorly studied, perhaps this cultural group is heterogeneous, Abashevo and the connection of Sintashta with the Indo-
and judging by finds of its pottery in other complexes, it Iranians made it possible to assume that Abashevo people
belongs to the post-Catacomb period, to the late 3rd – early spoke Indo-Iranian.229
2nd millennia BC.225 Thus, it can fit into the migration wave It is interesting that in this theory, and in others
associated with the spread of Babino culture. similar to it, the ideas about the genetic series of cultures
Thus, near the beginning of the A1c phase, new large- “Fatyanovo – Abashevo – Sintashta – Andronovo” coexist
scale migrations take place from the post-Corded and post- peacefully with the “Baltic-speaking” Fatyanovo people and
Bell-Beaker areas of Central Europe, which led to significant the “Indo-Iranian-speaking” Abashevo people.230 At the
transformations in the vast forest-steppe and forest spaces same time, as we discussed above, Fatyanovo has no relation
of Eastern Europe. with Yamnaya, Abashevo with Fatyanovo, the formation
of Sintashta from Abashevo has no basis, and the term
“Andronovo culture” is such a complex and contradictory
9. THE PROCESSES OF ETHNOGENESIS IN construct that experts who realy study it, either not used
EUROPE IN THE 3RD MILLENNIUM BC this term, or use in a completely different context than it
9.1. “KURGAN THEORY” AND THE PROBLEM is customary in Western literature or in Indo-European
OF ITS ADEQUACY reconstructions.231 In the latter, as a rule, ideas about
Ideas about the spread of the Indo-Europeans from cultural genesis in Eurasia are based on ideas that arose in
the steppe and the connection with the kurgan cultures the 60–70s of the last century. Even then, they were not the
were formulated by M. Gimbutas226 and quickly became only or even dominant ones. In real modern studies, most
popular. In a more detailed form, this concept was proposed of them are discussed only in the section of historiography,
by D. Anthony and subsequently supported by many other but it is on them that reconstructions of the Indo-European
scholars. Anthony connects the penetration of the Suvorovo- ethnogenesis are built. In Eurasia, the flows of culture and
Novodanilovka complex into the Balkans ca. 4300–3900 BC genes were directed from south to north. The penetration
with the stage of archaic PIE and sees this as a separation of the Andronovo culture into India and Iran is absolutely
of pre-Anatolian languages.227 There are two contradictions illusory, and there is no evidence that the steppe population
in this: archaeological and linguistic. The first is connected of Eastern Europe penetrated into Anatolia.232 However,
with the fact that this penetration was insignificant, and this it does not follow from this fact that the steppe kurgan
complex did not affect the cultural situation in the Balkans. cultures did not speak Indo-European, and that they were
The second contradiction is due to the fact that the Anatolian not responsible for the Indo-Europeanization of Europe,
languages had to be formed in isolation from the rest of the which, however, does not mean that, at least in this part,
PIE area for a very long time. Their specificity allows them to the “Kurgan theory” is right: in relation to Europe, we see a
be taken out of the other IE languages and to be considered series of similarly poorly substantiated ideas.
as separated from an earlier Proto-Indo-Hittite language.228 According to the “Kurgan theory”, the penetration
But these Eneolithic populations were in direct contacts with of Yamnaya people was the basis for the subsequent
other steppe Eneolithic groups. dialectal division of the IE languages. But, as we have seen,
Yamnaya people in the east, according to Anthony, this penetration left noticeable traces only in Pannonia, it
became the basis for the separation of Indo-Iranian practically did not affect the CWC cultural genesis. It should
223
LITVINENKO 2006, 218, 221, 228–233. 229
CARPELAN/PARPOLA 2001, 63–67, 84–88, 93–95; ANTHONY 2007,
224
VASIL’EV 2003. 306, 344, 348, 360, 367, 380.
225
LOPATIN 2012; MIMOKHOD 2018b. 230
See also KRAINOV 1987, 74; NORDQVIST/HEYD 2020, 65, 82, 83;
226
GIMBUTAS 1994. GRUNTHAL et alii 2022, 13.
227
ANTHONY 2007, 251, 259–262. 231
See GRIGORIEV 2021c.
228
KLOEKHORST 2016, 213, 229, 232. 232
GRIGORIEV 2021a.

Studies
be noted that in no case is the connection of any culture corresponds to the ancient ideas about the Asia Minor
with a particular language supported by arguments. This origins of the Etruscans.236 The North Caucasian languages
is done exclusively on the basis of spatial relationship of began to separate in the late 6th – early 5th millennia BC;237
these cultures and much later fixations of languages in accordingly, the migration to Europe led to the spread of
certain areas. But it is hard to believe that the formation languages of an earlier state.
of the European ethnic landscape took place only in the 3rd The North Caucasian languages, the Yenisei languages
millennium BC, and was not associated with later processes. in Middle Siberia, the Basque in Iberia, and the Na-Dene in
The idea that the Celtic languages moved westward through North America form the Dene-Caucasian language group.238
the contacts between the CWC and BBC in Central Europe Gamkrelidze and Ivanov suggested that a language closely
is rather dubious. It looks like the Bell Beaker people who related to Basque had previously been widespread in Atlantic
spoke some other languages moved east and north, came Europe and was associated with the builders of European
into contact with the CWC people, adopted their language megaliths. It is also assumed that the Neolithic population
and spread it back to the Atlantic coast. In real ethnic of Europe spoke languages close to North Caucasian or
processes, this is impossible. In any case, such statements Sumerian.239 This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that
require at least minimal evidence. megaliths are known only in areas where it is possible to
There are also problems with the chronology of reconstruct the presence of Dene-Caucasian languages,
dialectal divison of languages of the European group (very including in the Urals, and it is possible that the languages
different, and not originated from a single root). In particular, of ancient people of Sardinia and that of the Picts belonged
if this process began ca. 3000 BC, the formation of Fatyanovo to this group too.240
occurred shortly thereafter. This means that it took no These are just assumptions and indirect data. But there
more than 200 years for the separation of Baltic dialects, are others. In Greece, a pre-Greek Anatolian substratum,
which is unbelievable. The connection of Abashevo with probably Luwian, was originally identified. This conclusion
the Indo-Iranians also seems doubtful for several reasons: was based on toponyms with the endings -ss-, -nth- and
1) Abashevo did not play a significant role in the Sintashta -nd-. In addition to Greece and southwestern Anatolia, the
cultural genesis, 2) the idea of the Indo-Iranian belonging area of these toponyms also covers Macedonia, Thrace,
of Sintashta, although possibly fair, is based on dubious and a part of Hungary.241 Three successive language layers
argumentation, 3) the almost simultaneous separation of were then identified in Greece: 1) Pre-Indo-European, 2)
Indo-Iranian languages and all other languages, is doubtful Luwian, and 3) Greek.242 The Luwian pre-Greek substratum
and not confirmed by glottochronology, 4) Abashevo’s is associated with the population that came to Greece from
cultural genesis was connected with the BBC; therefore, the north of the Balkan Peninsula at the beginning of the
within the framework of this theory, we must assume either EBA, simultaneously with the appearance of speakers of
the coming of Celts or some pre-IE groups. Finally, in my other Anatolian dialects in Asia Minor.243 Accordingly,
opinion, before the division into these branches began, there this is an additional argument in favor of the idea that the
must have been some intermediate stages, with division Neolithic population of Europe did not speak IE languages,
into separate dialectal areas. This scheme has many other but in the northeast of the Balkans there was an area where
problems. It is entirely speculative, and is not supported Anatolian dialects separated. Their long isolation from other
by the evidences both linguistics and archeology. In my PIE dialects in the Near East determined the specificity
opinion, at that time the penetration of the Indo-Europeans of these languages. Their first appearance in the Balkans
into Europe took place, but this must be substantiated; and is also reflected in archaeological sources. If most of the
it was not at all necessary that they were ancestors of the European Neolithic cultures are connected with migrations
Balts, Slavs or Celts. from Asia Minor, in Bulgaria there were impulses with
features of cultures from the more eastern areas of Anatolia
9.2. ANCIENT LANGUAGE LAYERS IN EUROPE and Mesopotamia, where I am inclined to place the IE
Before starting the discussion of ethnic interpretations homeland.244 The subsequent migration of speakers of these
in the Corded Ware period, it is necessary to try to assess a dialects to Anatolia and Greece at the beginning of the EBA/
possible ethnic landscape in Europe before this. According EH was probably provoked by the Yamnaya migration to
to C. Renfrew, the coming of Anatolian populations at the the Northern Balkans. Thus, the speakers of the Anatolian
beginning of the Neolithic resulted in the spread of Indo- dialects were isolated from the rest of the PIE massif for at
European languages.233 However, in the Near East, the Indo- least 2000 years, which ensured their archaism and a special
European homeland is located not in Asia Minor, but to the position in relation to other IE languages.
east, in Upper Mesopotamia.234 Historically, Asia Minor 236
IVANOV 1988.
was inhabited by people who spoke the North Caucasian 237
STAROSTIN 1988, 154.
languages (Hatti and Hurrians), and from there speakers 238
STAROSTIN 1982; BENGTSON 2004.
of these languages migrated to the North Caucasus.235 It is 239
GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1995, 846; SCHRIJVER 2018, 360, 361.
240
GRIGORIEV/VASINA 2019, 197–199.
very likely that Etruscan belongs to these languages, which 241
PALMER 1958.
242
GINDIN 1967, 82, 94, 165–170.
233
RENFREW 1987. 243
GRIGORIEV 2022, 11, 12.
234
GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1995; GRIGORIEV 2002, 320–325. 244
NIKOLOV 1984, 7, 17–19; 1989, 192, 193; PERNICHEVA 1995, 104;
235
NICHOLS 2019, 153, 154. GRIGORIEV 2002, 326–328.

Studies
The presence of a pre-IE substrate is confirmed by the BBC, suggests that the former spoke some IE dialects,
the hydronymy of Europe. Previously, it was believed that and the latter did some Dene-Caucasian one. The migration
there were no pre-Indo-European river-names in Europe, all of speakers of the Dene-Caucasian languages to the east is
names are associated with early IE dialects,245 which could proved by the presence of the Yenisei languages i n Siberia. We
serve as proof of Renfrew’s correctness. However, later it explained this by the penetration of the Eneolithic megalithic
was shown that these names have a typological similarity complex from Europe into the Transurals, and pointed to the
with the Basque languages, but they were transformed by presence of Yenisei hydronyms in the Volga-Kama region,
IE dialects.246 The connection between the formation of the although the megalithic complex is absent there.253 In fact,
megalithic complex of the Urals and European megaliths similar hydronymy is not necessarily associated with a single
made it possible to reconstruct the migration of speakers of process. In addition, hydronymy, which can be compared
the Proto-Yenisei dialects to the east,247 which, like Basque, with Yenisei, is much more widespread in Eastern Europe.
belong to the same Dene-Caucasian language family. It is connected with small rivers and streams, and covers a
The Balto-Slavic-Germanic languages lacked their own vast region of the forest zone: occasionally from areas east
words for the sea, marine coast and life on the marine coast, of Lake Peipus (Chudskoe) to areas southeast of Ladoga, and
which means that their speakers had lived for some long from the Moskva basin quite densely throughout the Volga-
time far inland. Many marine terms in the Germanic, Baltic Kama region up to the Bashkir Urals. Single hydronyms are
and Finno-Ugrian languages of the Eastern Baltic area can known in the Bityug basin in the Don region.254 The most
be traced back to a common non-Indo-European and non- part of these river-names between the Moskva and Kama
basins falls on areas where it can be explained both by the
Finno-Ugric base. Some of the terms have an Indo-European
Fatyanovo-Balanovo and Abashevo presence, but those to
nature, but they were borrowed from an earlier Indo-
the west – only by Fatyanovo, and in Bashkiria and on the
European source.248 In Scandinavia and northern Germany,
Don – only by Abashevo (Fig. 8). It is possible to suggest
three consecutive language layers are distinguished on the
two explanations, which cannot be verified at this stage:
basis of place-names: non-IE, pre-Germanic IE and proto-
1) this distribution reflects both processes, including some
or early-Germanic.249 This suggested that it was the second
other processes; for example, in Eastern Europe there are
layer that was associated with the Corded Ware cultures.250
some parallels to the Funnel Beaker ware;255 2) the people of
It is possible that the transformation of the pre-IE river-
both the Fatyanovo-Balanovo and Abashevo cultures spoke
names by early IE speakers251 is connected precisely with
dialects close to the Proto-Yenisei languages, since ceramic
this. Accordingly, the Neolithic population of Europe did
types are far from always strictly related to the language
not speak IE languages, and at least some of them belonged
situation. In addition, as we see in Greece, even in a small
to the Dene-Caucasian languages. But more exact data on
area, the process of ethnogenesis takes an extremely long
which Indo-European speakers transformed the Dene-
time, despite the spread of similar cultural stereotypes.256
Caucasian hydronymy of Europe are limited. It was suggested
However, the presence of Proto-Yenisei hydronymy in the
by linguists of the first half of the 20th century that this
Volga-Kama basin and Bashkiria, the connection of Abashevo
hydronymy has Illyrian features, but it is more accurately to
with BBC, the formation of the BBC tradition primarily on
name it “Indo-European”.252 the basis of the old Neolithic traditions in Europe, allows
Based on all that has been said, the most likely us to assume that the Abashevo people spoke a language of
hypothesis is that the population of Neolithic Europe the Dene-Caucasian family. For the Fatyanovo people, this
spoke the languages of the Dene-Caucasian family, and it is also possible, since these river-names are also present in
is possible that the Bell Beaker people also spoke languages the Fatyanovo area, where there are no Abashevo sites. By
of this group. In the north of the Balkans, in the Neolithic the time of the Fatyanovo migration to the east, the Indo-
and Eneolithic, there lived tribes who spoke languages of Europeans might not have had time to assimilate the former
the Anatolian branch of the IE family. The CWC people, and, substrate. The spread of cultural traditions was probably
accordingly, people of the Eneolithic kurgan cultures of the much faster than the spread of language, and as we have
North Pontic region were Indo-Europeans. already discussed, it is unbelievable that the Baltic languages
separated in this early period.
9.3. LANGUAGES OF THE CORDED WARE, Paleogenetic studies allow us to state the closeness of
FATYANOVO AND ABASHEVO PEOPLE the Balts and the Finno-Ugric peoples. This is explained by
the fact that the Balts lived earlier in large areas of Eastern
In the case of the Fatyanovo-Balanovo and Abashevo
Europe, in contact with the Finno-Ugrians. At the same
migrations, it is rather difficult to judge what language these
time, it is possible that the Balts assimilated some Finno-
tribes eventually spread in Eastern Europe. The connection of
Ugric substratum in the Baltics.257 The homeland of the
the first group with the CWC traditions, and the second with
Uralic languages, which includes Finno-Ugric, was located
245
KRAHE 1964.
east of the Urals.258 The desintegration of Proto-Uralic,
246
VENNEMANN 1994, 263, 264.
247
GRIGORIEV/VASINA 2019, 197–199. 253
GRIGORIEV/VASINA 2019, 199.
248
SAUSVERDE 1996. 254
KUKLIN 2001, 10, 13, 14.
249
WITCZAK 1996; OSTMO 1996, 33. 255
See GRIGORIEV/VASINA 2019, 191–193.
250
GRIGORIEV 2002, 272. 256
GRIGORIEV 2022.
251
VENNEMANN 1994. 257
BALANOVSKII 2015, 167, 207.
252
KATIČIĆ 1976, 177. 258
NAPOL’SKIKH 1997, 162, 163; HÄKKINEN 2012, 95.

Studies
according to most linguists, occurred between 4000 and also known among the Lithuanians, which is explained by a
3000 BC.259 Recently, a proposal has been made to date the certain relationship between the Krivichs and Lithuanians.
desintegration of the Uralic within the interval of 2200– To the northeast, in the area of Lake Ilmen, the Finno-Ugric
1900 BC, which is associated with the spread from east to peoples lived. At the end of the 1st – the beginning of the
west of the Seima-Turbino (ST) bronzes. These bronzes are 2nd millennium AD, in the western part the northern border
considered as a marker of trade network that the speakers of the Balts-Latgalians was along the modern border with
of the Uralic dialects owned, and through this network they Estonia, and by this time they already occupied the territories
spread the Uralic languages to the west and to the east.260 of modern Lithuania and Latvia. The southern border of the
In my opinion, this is a rather strange way of spreading Balts were the rivers Pripyat and Seim, where they bordered
languages, and the dating of language desintegration is made the Slavs. The infiltration of the Slavs into these territories
without sufficient grounds. In this case, the Balts, all the began in the 6th century. This interpretation is confirmed by
more, could not meet the Finno-Ugric substrate in Eastern the hydronymy of the region.261
Europe in the 3rd millennium BC. In these studies, hydronyms with finals -va, -da are
We mentioned above that some of the words related considered as Baltic. But the latter are doubtful, and some
to life by the sea were borrowed into the Germanic, Baltic of the hydronyms with -va are rather Slavic. Therefore, the
and Finno-Ugric languages of the Baltic region from some Baltic hydronyms are localized from the Eastern Baltic to the
non-IE language, and another part of words from an early IE Upper Dnieper, in the areas of the Brushed Pottery culture,
source. The Baltic hydronyms in the forest zone of Eastern the Dnieper-Dvina, Yukhnov and Late Dyakovo cultures of
Europe are indeed widespread, but the distribution of the the early Iron Age. The inclusion of the Moshchiny culture of
Balts could be associated with later events. An extensive the Oka basin in the area of Baltic hydronyms is less reliable
literature is devoted to this problem, and its solution, in (Fig. 9).262 To the east, these hydronyms are unknown, so
general, is outlined. their area does not correspond to the area of the Fatyanovo-
At the end of the 4th and in the 5th centuries AD in the Balanovo sites. Based on all of the above, we may conclude
forest zone of Eastern Europe (Upper Dnieper and Western that the Fatyanovo people were not speakers of the Baltic
Dvina), provincial Roman objects of Central European or Balto-Slavic dialects. The latter penetrated into Eastern
origins appeared in large numbers: new types of sickles, Europe in the Migration Period of the early Middle Ages.
millstones, B-shaped fluted buckles, rye and oats, which is This is also confirmed when referring to the problem
explained by powerful migrations from the Middle Vistula of origins of the Slavs and Veneti. The Eastern Slavs,
basin. It is assumed that before that, the Balts, represented according to the early Russian Tale of Bygone Years, came
by sites of the Dnieper-Dvina culture, lived here in the from the Danube. On cultural features and on the basis of
Early Iron Age, and these migrations are associated with continuity with subsequent Slavic cultures in the 5th – 7th
the Western Balts and Slavs. As a result, local cultures were centuries, three groups of Slavs are distinguished, which,
assimilated, and the Kolochi-Bantserovshchina-Tushemlya however, do not have a direct relation to their subsequent
cultures formed in this area, as well as Moshchiny culture three language groups: 1) Prague-Korchak (from the Elbe
in the Oka basin, which had the Upper Oka culture as a local to Pripyat, including the upper and middle reaches of the
basis. Later (in the 11th – 13th centuries AD), some ornaments Vistula and Oder), 2) Prague-Penkovka (forest-steppe
of these cultures are found among the Slavs-Krivichs, but are between the Dnieper and Danube), 3) northwestern area
with pottery of the Sukow and Dziedzice types between the
259
PARPOLA 2012, 144. middle Oder and the middle Vistula). The first of these has
260
GRUNTHAL et alii 2022. This idea is drawn from an earlier work, which
suggested that the Seima-Turbino (ST) bronzes were the invention of
roots in the Przeworsk culture of the southern half of Poland
the Abashevo metallurgists west of the Urals, and their distribution was and Western Ukraine (Fig. 9).263
linked to a trading network (CARPELAN/PARPOLA 2001, 105–109). In
Traditionally, the homeland of the Slavs has been
this work, the center of this network has been moved to the Transurals,
and it is assumed that the Seimo-Turbino people, speakers of the Uralic placed north of the Carpathians, from the Vistula (or Oder)
languages, owned this network, were engaged in mining and metallurgy: to the middle Dnieper, including the Berezina and Desna, and
“Uralic speakers were the prospectors, miners, boatsmen, trade managers, Volhynia with Podolia in the south, although there is much
procurers, and first settlers of trading posts at major river confluences;
the Indo-Iranian-speaking Sintashta culture and its successors financed discussion about the clarification of the boundaries and the
prospecting, trade, and markets” (GRUNTHAL et alii 2022, 11). Based on connection with specific cultures.264 In Eastern Europe in
the correlation of chemical compositions and typology of ST bronzes, it is the first half of the 1st millennium AD, the Slavs occupied
well demonstrated that these objects are connected with the movement of
people from Altai to the west (CHERNYKH/KUZ’MINYKH 1989). There the territory between the middle Dnieper, the Dniester and
are single inclusions of Sintashta metal objects in ST monuments, and vice the Bug, where the Zarubinets, Kyiv, and partly Przeworsk
versa, however, there is no typologically Sintashta object made of ST metal. cultures were located.265
For the ST sites of the Asian zone, Sintashta-Abashevo arsenic bronzes are
not typical, but arsenic metal appears on the ST sites of the Volga-Kama There is another point of view, suggesting the
region, due to the great distance from the tin sources of Altai. Moreover, localization of the Slavs and Balts in the first half of the 1st
in the Urals, there are no tin sources. There is a relationship, driven by
technology and chemical processes, between the original ore, types of alloys
millennium AD in the forest and partly forest-steppe zone of
and types of metal object (GRIGORIEV 2017; GRIGORIEV 2018). Seima-
Turbino metallurgy could not have arisen in the Urals. Therefore, when 261
SEDOV 1982, 29, 34, 39, 43, 44; 1987, 361–375; 2001, 81–85.
searching for archaeological grounds for the localization of the Uralic and 262
GUSENKOV 2021.
Finno-Ugric homeland, it would be better to turn to the system of cultural 263
SEDOV 1982, 5, 10, 19, 28.
genesis of forest cultures in Northern Eurasia in the 4th – 2nd millennia BC, 264
GODŁOVSKI 1979; RUSANOVA 1993, 6–9.
but not to the Seima-Turbino metal. 265
RUSANOVA 1993, 12.

Studies
Attention is drawn to the

change in the localization of the
Veneti: according to Pliny the
Elder and Clavidius Ptolemy,
they lived east of the Vistula
throughout the Venedian Gulf,
and according to Jordan, vast
areas of the Veneti extended north
from the Carpathians and the
upper Vistula. Roman road map of
the late 3rd – early 4th centuries AD
(Tabula Peutingeriana) places the
Veneti in two areas: northwest of
the Bastarni and next to the Getae
and Dacians, i.e. between the
Danube and the Dniester, which
may reflect the movement of the
Slavs to the south. However, in
Roman sources, the Veneti and
the Slavs are mentioned together
as separate peoples, although
Jordan suggests their origin from
the same root, along with the
Antes, and Procopius of Caesarea
writes that they spoke the same
barbarian language.269 At the
same time, it is assumed that the
term “Veneti” was transferred
from an older name, possibly, of
the Celtic-Illyrian people.270 In
Fig. 9. Slavic and Baltic cultures of Eastern Europe at the end of the early Iron Age – the beginning the Merovingian chronicles of the
of the Middle Ages.
middle of the 7th c. AD, compiled
Eastern Europe, between the Western Bug and the Dniester by Fredegarius Scholasticus, the Winidi are repeatedly
in the west and the upper reaches of the Oka in the east. mentioned, and c. AD 623 there are three mentions of the
Their boundary in the north was the upper reaches of the Slavs, twice explained as “Sclavi cognomento Winidi”. But
Lovat and the Western Dvina. Such localization is based on there is never a mention of “Winidi cognomento Sclavi”,
the information of Roman authors, Tacitus (AD 23/24–79), which indicates a certain difference between them.271
Pliny the Elder (ca. AD 55–120), Claudius Ptolemy (d. ca. Thus, written sources are generally consistent with
AD 179) and Jordanes (6th century AD) about the Veneti, archaeological ones, and allow us to place the homeland
by which the Slavs are understood. Some groups of Veneti of the Slavs in the Vistula basin, in the Przeworsk culture
also lived near the Baltic Sea to the east of the Vistula (Fig. area, from where they moved south and southeast during
10). From this area at the end of the 5th – the first third of the Great Migration Period, i.e. simultaneously with the
the 6th century, they spread in the Eastern Carpathian region migration of the Balts to more northern regions. Since
and along the left bank of the lower Danube, which created this culture was formed in the area and on the basis of the
the historical memory of their resettlement from there in Pomeranian culture (7–3 centuries BC) (Fig. 9), that occupied
Russian and Polish chronicles. It is assumed that the Balto- the entire Vistula basin and reached the middle Oder, which
Slavs lived in Eastern Europe as early as the beginning of corresponds to the earliest localization of the Veneti, it is
the 1st millennium BC, and this goes back as far as the CWC possible that ethnogenesis of the Slavs and Balts took place
period.266 D.N. Kozak understood the Przeworsk culture of in this area.
the 2nd century BC – early 5th century AD as the Veneti-Slavs.
But one should pay attention to the fact that the
This culture is located in the southern half of Poland, from
term “Veneti” is “wandering”. On the one hand, the Finns,
where it spread into western Ukraine.267 However, later,
Estonians and Karelians use it for Russia (respectively:
he connected the Veneti of Tacitus with the Zubritsky and
Venäjä, Vene and Veneä). In medieval Germany, the term
Chernyakhov cultures, and the Przeworsk culture with the
Winidi was somehow related to the Slavs. But the Vandals
Germans.268
266
MACHINSKII 1989. 269
GVOZDANOVIĆ 2012, 38.
267
KOZAK 1993, 53, 63. 270
RUSANOVA 1993, 13.
268
KOZAK 2008, 12, 42. 271
GVOZDANOVIĆ 2012, 398.

Studies
in a neighboring region in the
northwestern Balkans. It is
supposed that these innovations
in all three areas were transferred
to ca. mid-1st millennium BC from
one language most comparable
to Adriatic Venetic.273 In my
opinion, this indicates two things:
1) the existence of a large related
substrate,274 2) the survival of its
enclaves until the middle of the 1st
millennium AD, which indicates
an extremely low rate of language
assimilations.
In this region of the lower
reaches of the Po River, in the
period synchronous with the
beginning of the EH III in Greece,
the Polada culture formed. Its
formation was associated with
migrations from the Danube
region, and subsequently the
cultural tradition developed on
this basis there. This movement
was caused by the coming of the
Thracians in the region, and it also
Fig. 10. Distribution areas of the ethnonym “Veneti”. caused the displacement of the
Illyrians from the same region to
were a Germanic tribe, although they came from the eastern the south, up to Western Greece, and migration of the Mesapi
regions adjacent to the Slavic area. And the Romans, starting to southeastern Italy. The latter is visible in the appearance
with Caesar and up to the 5th century AD knew the Gallic of materials of the Cetina culture from the northwest of
tribe Venetos in Brittany. Therefore, the term itself is not the Balkans.275 The language of the latter was very close to
a marker of any particular people (illustrative situation: Illyrian.276 It was at this time (2300/2200–2200/2100 BC)
Britons, Bretons and British, as well as Franks and French), that the final disappearance of post-Baden cultures took
and could, indeed, go back to some more ancient people who place, and new cultures formed in the Middle Danube: Early
lived in Northern Europe. Nagyrév, Late Bell Beaker, Nitra, Proto-Aunjetitz, Nyírség,
The earliest appearance of this term is associated and Maros.277
with the Veneti in northeastern Italy, in the area of modern Thus, the Veneti, Illyrians and Mesapi ca. 2200/2150
Venice. There, in 200 short inscriptions attributed to 900– BC migrated from the Middle Danube, which in the previous
182 BC, the Venetic language is fixed. The early inscriptions time was most actively developed by the steppe groups. In
are written using the North Etruscan alphabet, while the addition, Veneti are present later in the areas of Corded
later ones are written in Latin. These data are very scarce, Ware cultures, and some European hydronyms of this region
it is obvious that this is an IE language, and its relationship maybe have Illyrian features. In addition, the Veneti and
with Illyrian is assumed, although not everyone supports the Illyrians were close neighbors, and, according to some
this. Сonnections with the Celtic and Italic languages are linguists, their languages were related (although the issue has
reconstructed, and some limited relations with the Germanic
and Slavic ones, but there is no clarity on attributing it to 273
GVOZDANOVIĆ 2012, 42–45.
any group.272 274
The author of this study believes that Venetic was a special continental
Celtic language (GVOZDANOVIĆ 2012, 37, 44, 45). I cannot discuss
There is no information on Eastern European and linguistic arguments; there is no agreement among linguists on this issue.
Armorican Venetic, but reconstructions are possible on But from the point of view of the historical model, it is difficult to imagine
the basis of some phonological innovations in the Slavic a special Celtic group that existed for such a long time, despite the Celtic
languages and in the Vannetais dialect of Breton, which migrations, and in different areas contributed to significant innovations
in different languages. This picture indicates, rather, some early substrate.
has a special position among the Celtic languages. These Based on the archaeological model discussed here, Venetic is more likely to
innovations are similar, and they have features of the be related to Illyrian. If this language were Celtic, we should expect similar
Venetic of northeastern Italy. These features are more innovations not only in Slavic but also in South German dialects. However,
this problem must be solved by linguists.
pronounced in the Slovene language, which was formed 275
MONTANARI et alii 1996, 58; MARAN 1998, 315, 325–327; SESTIERI
2010, 21, 47; 2013, 635; GRIGORIEV 2022, 16.
276
KATIČIĆ 1976, 132–146, 154–157, 163, 166, 175, 184–187; WILKES
272
MALLORY/ADAMS 1997, 620, 621; WALLACE 2004; GVOZDANOVIĆ 1992, 68–80, 87, 183; MALLORY/ADAMS 1997, 288.
2012, 34–37. 277
HORVÁTH/SVINGOR 2015, 47.

Studies
not been finally resolved). Therefore, it can be assumed that them originated in Asia Minor and were speakers of the
in the late 4th – early 3rd millennia BC, the steppe tribes that Dene-Caucasian languages, only after that, the remaining
came to the Danube spoke languages of the Venetic-Illyrian part of these languages in Asia Minor evolved into the
group, and their disintegration into Venetic and Illyrian took Proto-North Caucasian. In Europe, descendants of these
place already there. However, this question can only be solved people are the Basques and Etruscans, but if the former are,
by linguists. Some dialects of this group were also common apparently, the descendants of the first Neolithic wave, then
in the CWC area. At the same time, it is very likely that the the latter came from Asia Minor much later. At the same
process of assimilation of the former population was very time, more eastern groups from Upper Mesopotamia also
slow, and a change of culture does not always mean a change took part in the process of neolithization of the northeast
of language. In any case, there is no such data regarding the of the Balkan Peninsula, due to which the isolation of the
Fatyanovo and Abashevo people. Moreover, there is reason Anatolian dialects (ancestors of the future Hittite, Luwian
to suspect that they retained the language of the former and Palaic languages) took place on the territory of modern
Neolithic population.278 R.A. Mimokhod believes that, since Bulgaria. Then they spread wider, up to Macedonia and
the Abashevo and Fatyanovo migrations started in Central part of Hungary, as indicated by the area of distribution of
Europe, and the Abashevo people assimilated part of the Anatolian toponyms. It is possible that during the period of
Fatyanovo-Balanovo population, this migration took place the first penetration of the Eneolithic kurgan cultures into
in a related language environment.279 However, it does not the region, this Anatolian substratum was represented by
follow from all that has been said that all this may indicate the Ezero and Coţofeni cultures, and possibly some others.
that the language landscape in Central Europe remained The affinity of the language facilitated the formation of
unchanged, since the distribution of similar river-names in the Proto-Venetic and Proto-Illyrian population here. The
the Fatyanovo and Abashevo areas discussed above might spread of these peoples to other parts of Europe created
be resulted from different processes. Fatyanovo migration the substrate on which later European dialects were
began shortly after the beginning of the CWC formation, superimposed. Thus, despite the difficulties in the spread of
and, despite the change in cultural stereotypes, language languages described in this article, in the case of Europe, this
assimilation could not occur everywhere. It is possible that was facilitated by the fact that there were several successive
some groups that retained the former language were forced layers of IE languages, which ensured this process.
out to other regions. But by the Abashevo time, the situation
Within the Eneolithic, especially in its late part, in
in Central Europe had changed, and IE dialects dominated in
the North Caucasus and the North Pontic region, waves of
most of the CWC area. The Neolithic language component
newcomers from the south, bearers of Caucasian-Iranian
(probably belonging to the Dene-Caucasian group) may have
and Anatolian genes, as well as Proto-Venetic/Proto-Illyrian
been introduced into Central Europe by a population with
languages, were superimposed on the local substrates.
the Bell Beaker traditions.
As a result, the Maikop culture formed here (a language
As a result of these processes, the vast spaces of of whose speakers is completely unclear, but rather Indo-
Northern, Central and Southeastern Europe were inhabited European), as well as many Late Eneolithic kurgan cultures.
by tribes who spoke IE dialects. The spread of these dialects In the last quarter of the 4th millennium BC, the bearers of
took over 1000 years. In genetic terms, they were ancestors of these cultures penetrated the Northern Balkans and the
the later European populations: Balts, Slavs, Germans, Celts Middle Danube, and a process of cultural transformations
and Italics. However, these languages could not be formed began, which probably also reflects language assimilation.
from Venetic and Illyrian, and their appearance is associated The result of this was the formation of a wide zone of
with later events of the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. permanent interaction from the North Caucasus to
After that, probably, the further dialectal division and the Central Europe and the Northern Balkans. Around 3000
formation of European languages known in historical time BC there was a consolidation of the late Eneolithic groups
also took quite a long time. But the presence in Europe of a of the Ponto-Caspian steppes with the formation of the
large previous IE substrate facilitated this process. On the Yamnaya culture. Additional influxes from the south are
other hand, new migrations from the east contributed to the not excluded in this case, but require not only paleogenetic,
growth of genetic similarity.280 but also serious archaeological justification. There was a
new, massive penetration of the steppe population into the
10. CONCLUSIONS Balkan-Carpathian region, which caused the displacement
Consideration of cultural processes in Europe within of the former population (descendants of local and steppe
wide spatial and chronological boundaries allows us to Eneolithic tribes) to the north and the beginning of the
reconstruct the ethnogenesis of European peoples in a new Corded Ware cultures formation in Central and Northern
way. It began with the penetration of people from Anatolia Europe. This led to a significant spatial distribution of
into Europe at the beginning of the Neolithic. Most of these early IE dialects. The process was also intensified by
the fact that constant interaction with the original area was
278
I must point to one contradiction: the designation of Russians by terms established, which ensured the influx of new people. This was
going back to “Veneti” in the Baltic Finnish and Karelian languages. This may a fairly common scheme of ethnogenesis in antiquity, since
indicate that the Fatyanovo people nevertheless brought the IE language to we see something similar in Greece. However, this process, as
this area, but it is also very likely that this term was introduced much later.
279
MIMOKHOD 2022, 138, 139. in Greece, was extremely slow. In any case, the migration of
280
GRIGORIEV 2002; GRIGORIEV 2021a, 217, 218. the Fatyanovo culture from the Corded Ware area probably

Studies
reflects the coming of people who spoke the old dialects REFERENCES
of Neolithic Europe. Therefore, we have no guarantee that ALLENTOFT et alii 2015
the CWC people in all areas spoke IE languages. The second Allentoft, M. et alii., Population genomics of Bronze Age
consequence of the steppe penetration to the north of the Eurasia, Nature 522, 167–172.
Balkans was the displacement of the speakers of Anatolian ALLENTOFT et alii 2022
dialects from there to Asia Minor and Greece.
Allentoft, M. et alii., Population genomics of Stone
After the middle of the 3rd millennium BC, the Bell Age Eurasia, BioRxiv preprint. Doi: https://doi.
Beaker people, who spoke the languages of Neolithic Europe, org/10.1101/2022.05.04.490594.
penetrated into Central Europe. However, in this case, we deal ALRAM-STERN 2004
with a somewhat different phenomenon, since no Iberian Alram-Stern, E., Die Ägäische Frühzeit, 2. Serie,
genes appeared in Central Europe, but there was an increase Forschungsbericht 1975-2003, Die Frühbronzezeit in
in earlier Eneolithic genes. These groups coexisted with the Griechenland mit Ausnahme von Kreta, Veröffentlichungen
main mass of the CWC people, but in some areas they could der Mykenischen Kommission 21 (Wien: Österreichische
change the language situation. In any case, the Abashevo Akademie der Wissenschaften).
people, who migrated after that from Central Europe and ALRAM-STERN 2014
inherited mainly the Bell Beaker cultural traditions, probably Alram-Stern, E., Times of Change: Greece and the Aegean
spoke the former languages of the Dene-Caucasian family, during the 4th Millennium BC. In: Horejs, B./Mehofer, M.
while the Babino people, close to the post-Corded Ware (eds.), Western Anatolia before Troy Proto-Urbanisation in the
traditions, could be Indo-Europeans, although we have no 4th Millennium BC? Oriental and European Archaeology. Vol.
ground to discuss this problem yet. These last two migrations 1 (Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften),
(as well as migrations of the Veneti, Mesapi and Illirians to 305–328.
the south) were caused by the penetration of the Thracians ANDREEVA 1977
from Anatolia, who displaced part of the population from Andreeva, M.V., K voprosu o yuzhnykh svyazyakh
the southeast of Central Europe. A completely different maikopskoi kul’tury [To the problem of southern
situation may have been in the British Isles, where the connections of Maikop culture], Sovetskaya arkheologiya 1,
population changed with the coming of Bell Beaker people, 39–56.
but early IE hydronymy is also known there. Therefore, it ANTHONY 2007
is possible that the population came here from the Lower Anthony, D.W., The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How
Rhine, subjected to cultural, but not linguistic assimilation. Bronze Age riders from the Eurasian Steppes shaped the modern
But such conclusions at the level of individual regions are world (Princeton: University Press).
already rather difficult, since the spread of culture does not BADER/KHALIKOV 1987
fully reflect the spread of language, and, as we have seen, it Bader, O.N./Khalikov, A.Kh., Balanovskaya kul’tura
occurs much faster than language assimilation. The latter, as [Balanovo culture]. In: Bader, O.N./Krainov, D.A./Kosarev,
we have seen in all examples, passed extremely slowly, and M.F. (eds.), Epokha bronzy lesnoi polosy SSSR [Bronze Age of
enclaves of former languages could survive for hundreds and the forest belt] (Moscow: Nauka), 76–84.
thousands of years. In addition, it is possible that this did BALANOVSKII 2015
not happen everywhere and not in all cases. Therefore, the Balanovskii, O.P., Genofond Evropy [European gene pool]
most general observations given here may not be applied to (Moscow: KMK).
any region of Europe. Reconstruction of the real situation BALANOVSKY 2019
requires long and complex studies.
Balanovsky, O., Comments on the Caucasian Substrate
Hypothesis, Journal of Indo-European Studies 47, 166–174.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BENGTSON 2004
I am grateful to Ukrainian colleagues S.V. Ivanova Bengtson, J.D., Some features of Dene-Caucasian phonology
(Institute of Archeology of the National Academy of Sciences, (with special reference to Basque), Cahiers de l’Institut de
Odessa) and R.A. Litvinenko (Donetsk National University Linguistique de Louvain (CILL) 30/4, 33–54.
at Vinnitsa). They know the materials of the Northern Black BOL’SHOV 2003
Sea region and Central Europe better than I do, and their Bol’shov S.V., Strukturoobrazuyushchie priznaki
recommendations were invaluable. Special thanks to O.I. srednevolzhskoi abashevskoi kul’tury [Structure-forming
Orlova (Center “Arkaim”, Chelyabinsk) for preparing the features of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture]. In:
drawings. Abashevskaya kul’turno-istoricheskaya obshchnost’: istoki,
razvitie, nasledie. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi
konferencii [Abashevo cultural and historical community:
origins, development, heritage. Materials of the
international scientific conference], (Cheboksary: Chuvash.
Gos. Inst. Gum. Nauk), 9–91.
BOL’SHOV 2008
Bol’shov, S.V., Otnositel’naya khronologiya srednevolzhskoi
abashevskoi kul’tury [Relative chronology of the Middle
Volga Abashevo culture], Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo
centra Rossiiskoi akademii nauk 10/4, 1265–1269.

Studies
BOL’SHOV 2010 on the Polish Lowland. In: Baioni, M./Leonini, V./Lo Vetro,
Bol’shov, S.V., K voprosu o fat’yanovsko-balanovskoi D./Martini, F./Poggiani Keller, R./Sarti, L. (eds.), Bell Beaker
kul’turno-istoricheskoi obshchnosti [To the question of the in everyday life. Proceedings of the 10th Meeting “Archeologie
Fatyanovo-Balanovo cultural and historical community], et Gobelets” (Florence – Siena – Villanuova sul Clisi). May 12-
Izvestiya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Povolzhskii region. 15, 2006 (Firenze: Museo Fiorentino Di Preistoria «Paolo
Gumanitarnye nauki 3, 3–11. Graziosi»), 221–233.
BUCHVALDEK 1986 CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT 2012
Buchvaldek, M., Die mitteleuropäische Schnurkeramik und Czebreszuk, J./Szmyt, M., Bell Beakers and the cultural
das nördliche Schwarzmeergebiet, Památky Archeologické 2, milieu of north European plain. In: Fokkens, H./Nicolis,
486–497. F. (eds.), Background to Beakers. Inquiries into regional
cultural backgrounds of the Bell Beaker complex (Leiden:
BUDZISZEWSKI/WŁODARCZAK 2011 Sidestone Press), 157–176.
Budziszewski, J./Włodarczak, P., Die schnurkeramischen CZEBRESZUK et alii 2019
Beile aus den kleinpolnischen Gräbern. In: Beier, H.-J./
Czebreszuk, J./Szmyt, M./Müller, J./Ławniczak, M., Late
Einicke, R./Biermann, E. (eds.), Varia neolithica VII. Dechsel,
Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement archaeology on
Axt, Beil & Co-Werkzeug, Waffe, Kultgegenstand? Aktuellesaus
the Oder and Vistula Rivers in north-west Poland, Tagungen
der Neolithforschung [Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte
des Landesmuseums für Vorgeschichte Halle XX, 1–15.
Mitteluropas 63] (Langenweissbach: Beier&Beran), 55–64.
DANI 2011
CARPELAN/PARPOLA 2001
Dani, J., Research of Pit–Grave culture kurgans in Hungary
Carpelan, Ch./Parpola, A., Emergence, contacts and
in the last three decades. In: Pető, Á./Barczi, A. (eds.), Kurgan
dispersal of Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Uralic and Proto-
Studies. An environmental and archaeological multiproxy study
Aryan in archaeological perspective. In: Carpelan, Ch./
of burial mounds in the Eurasian steppe zone (Oxford: British
Parpola, A./Koskikallio, P. (eds.), Early contacts between
Archaeological Reports Publishing), 25–69.
Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological
Considerations [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia/ EBERSCHWEILER 1999
Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 242] (Helsinki: Eberschweiler, B. Die jüngsten endneolithischen
Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura), 55–150. Ufersiedlungen am Zürichsee. Mit einem Exkurs von
CHARNYAЎ� SKI/VAITOVІCH 2019 Eduard Gross-Klee: Glockenbecher: ihre Chronologie und
ihr zeitliches Verhältnis zur Schnurkeramik aufgrund von C
Charnyaў� ski, M./Vaitovich, A., Kul’tura sharapadobnykh 14-Daten, Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur-
amfar i yae ўplyvy na Belaruskim Paazer’i (pavodle und Frühgeschichte 82, 39–54.
materyyalaў� Kryvinskaga tarfyanika) [Culture of Globular
Amphorae and its influences on the Belarusian Lake District EPIMAKHOV 2020
(according to materials of the Krivinsky peat bog)]. In: Epimakhov, A.V., Radiouglerodnye argumenty
Szmyt, M./Chachlikowski, P./Czebreszuk, J./Ignaczak, M./ abashevskogo proiskhozhdeniya sintashtinskikh tradicii
Makarowicz, P. (eds.), Vir bimaris: od kujawskiego matecznika bronzovogo veka [Radiocarbon Arguments of the Abashevo
do stepów nadczarnomorskich: studia z dziejów międzymorza Origin of the Bronze Age Sintashta Traditions], Ural’skij
bałtycko-pontyjskiego ofiarowane Profesorowi Aleksandrowi istoricheskii vestnik 4/69, 51–60.
Kośko (Poznań: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu im. FRÎNCULEASA/PREDA/HEYD 2015
Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu), 609–620. Frînculeasa, A./Preda, B./Heyd, V., Pit-Graves, Yamnaya
CHERNYKH 2010 and Kurgans along the Lower Danube: Disentangling IVth
Chernykh, E.N., Med’ khvalynskikh mogil’nikov i ee paralleli and IIIrd Millennium BC. Burial Customs, Equipment and
(po dannym spektroanaliticheskikh issledovanii) [Copper Chronology, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 90/1-2, 45–113.
of the Khvalynsk cemeteries and its parallels (according FURHOLT 2003
to spectral analyses)]. In: Agapov, S.A. (ed.), Khvalynskie Furholt, M., Die absolutchronologische Datierung der
eneoliticheskie mogil’niki i khvalynskaya eneoliticheskaya Schnurkeramik in Mitteleuropa und Südskandinavien
kul’tura. Issledovaniya materialov [Khvalynsk Eneolithic [Universitätsforschungen zur prähistorischen Archäologie
cemeteries and the Khvalyn Eneolithic culture. Materials 101] (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt).
Research] (Samara: Povolzh’e), 219–233.
FURHOLT 2008
CHERNYKH/KUZ’MINYKH 1989
Furholt, M., Die Złota-Gruppe in Kleinpolen: Ein Beispiel
Chernykh, E.N./Kuz’minykh, S.V., Drevnyaya metallurgiya für die Transformation eines Zeichensystems?, Germania
severnoi Evrazii [Ancient metallurgy of northern Eurasia] 86, 1–28.
(Moscow: Nauka). FURHOLT 2019
CZEBRESZUK 1991 Furholt, M., Re-integrating Archaeology: A Contribution
Czebreszuk, J., Late horizon of the Globular Amphorae to aDNA Studies and the Migration Discourse on the 3rd
Culture versus other cultural structures of the Neolithic- Millennium BC in Europe, Proceedings of the Prehistoric
Bronze Age interstage. Problem of system disintegration. Society 85, 115–129.
In: Cofta-Broniewska, A. (ed.), New tendencies in studies of FURHOLT 2020
Globular Amphorae culture (Warsaw: Warsaw University),
Furholt, M., Social Worlds and Communities of Practice:
113–136.
a polythetic culture model for 3rd millennium BC Europe
CZEBRESZUK/SZMYT 2008 in the light of current migration debates, Préhistoires
Czebreszuk, J./Szmyt, M., Bell Beakers and their role in a Méditerranéennes 8, URL: http://journals.openedition.org/
settlement evolution during the Neolithic-Bronze interstage pm/2383.

Studies
GAMKRELIDZE/IVANOV 1995 Genesis in the Eurasian Bronze Age, Open Archaeology 7,
Gamkrelidze, T.V./Ivanov, V.V., Indo-European and the Indo- 3–36.
Europeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto- GRIGORIEV 2021d
Language and Proto-Culture (Berlin: Moutin de Gruyter). Grigoriev, S., Problema domestikacii loshadi na
GERLING et alii 2012 Blizhnem Vostoke v III tys. do n.e. [The problem of horse
Gerling, C./Banffy, E./Dani, J./Kohler, K./Kulcsar, G./ domestication in the Near East in the third millennium BC],
Pike, A.W.G./Szeverenyi, V./Heyd, V., Immigration and Ufimskii arheologicheskii vestnik 21/2, 14–30.
transhumance in the Early Bronze Age Carpathian Basin: GRIGORIEV 2022
the occupants of a kurgan, Antiquity 86, 1097–1111. Grigoriev, S., Origins of the Greeks and Greek dialects,
GIMBUTAS 1956 Journal of ancient history and archaeology 1, 5–46.
Gimbutas, M., The prehistory of Eastern Europe. Mesolithic, GRIGORIEV/VASINA 2019
neolithic and copper age cultures in Russia and the Baltic Grigoriev, S./Vasina, Yu., Megaliths of the Vera Island in the
area [Harvard University Bulletin 20] (Cambridge, Mass.: Southern Urals (Oxford: Archaeopress).
Peabody Museum).
GROSS–KLEE 1999
GIMBUTAS 1994
Gross–Klee, E., Glockenbecher: ihre Chronologie und ihr
Gimbutas, M. Das Ende Alteuropas. Der Einfall von zeitliches Verhältnis zur Schnurkeramik aufgrund von C
Steppennomaden aus Südrußland und die Indogermanisierung 14-Daten, Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Ur-
Mitteleuropas (Budapest: Archaeolingua). und Frühgeschichte 82, 55–64.
GINDIN 1967 GRUNTHAL et alii 2022
Gindin, L.A., Yazyk drevnejshego naseleniya yuga Balkanskogo Grunthal, R./Heyd, V./Holopainen, S./Janhunen, J.A./
poluostrova [Language of the most ancient population of the Khanina, O./Miestamo, M./Nichols, J./Saarikivi, J./
south of the Balkan Peninsula] (Moscow: Nauka). Sinnemaki, K., Drastic demographic events triggered the
GODŁOVSKI 1979 Uralic spread, Diachronica 39/4, 1–34. Doi: https://doi.
Godłovski, K. Z badań nad zagadnieniem rozprzestrzenienia org/10.1075/dia.20038.gru.
Słowian w V-VII w. n.e. (Kraków: Wydawnictwo Akademii GUSENKOV 2021
Górniczo-Hutniczej). Gusenkov, P.A., Eshche raz o gidronimii «zapadnobaltiiskogo»
GÓRSKI et alii 2013 tipa v srednei polose Rossii [Once again about hydronymy
Górski, J./Jarosz, P./Tunia, K./Wilk, S./Włodarczak, P., of the “Western Baltic” type in central Russia], Voprosy
New evidence on the absolute chronology of the early onomastiki 18/2, 67–87.
Mierzanowice culture in south-eastern Poland. In: GVOZDANOVIĆ 2012
Bartelheim, M./Peška, J./Turek, J. (eds.), From Copper to Gvozdanović, J., On the linguistic classification of Venetic,
Bronze Cultural and Social Transformations at the Turn of the Journal of Language Relationship 7, 33–46.
3rd/2nd Millennia B.C. in Central Europe [Beiträge zur Ur-
HAAK et alii 2015
und Frühgeschichte Mitteleuropas 74] (Langenweissbach:
Beier&Beran), 105–118. Haak, W. et alii, Massive migration from the steppe was
a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, Nature
GRIGORIEV 2002
522(7555), 207–211.
Grigoriev, S.A., Ancient Indo-Europeans (Chelyabinsk: Rifei).
HÄKKINEN 2012
GRIGORIEV 2017
Häkkinen, J., Early contacts between Uralic and Yukaghir.
Grigoriev, S., Social processes in Ancient Eurasia and In: Hyytiäinen, T./ Jalava, L./Saarikivi, J./Sandman, E.
development of types of alloys in metallurgical production, (eds.), Per Urales ad Orientem. Iter polyphonicum multilingue
Archaeoastronomy and Ancient Technologies 5/2, 17–44. Festskrift tillägnad Juha Janhunen på hans sextioårsdag den
GRIGORIEV 2018 12 februari 2012 [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia/
Grigoriev, S., Social processes in ancient Europe and changes Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 264] (Helsinki:
in the use of ore and alloys in metallurgical production, Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seura), 91–101.
Archaeoastronomy and Ancient Technologies 7/2, 1–30. HÄUSLER 2014
GRIGORIEV 2019 Häusler, A., Bemerkungen zu den ostlichen Regionalgruppen
Grigoriev, S.A., Central European impulses in Eastern der schnurkeramischen Becherkulturen, Jahresschrift für
Europe in the early second millennium BC, Slovenská Mitteldeutsche Vorgeschichte 94, 83–123.
Archeológia 2, 225–239. HEGGARTY 2015
GRIGORIEV 2021a Heggarty, P., Prehistory through language and archaeology.
Grigoriev, S.A. Archeology, language and genes: the Indo- In: Bowern, C./Evans, B. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of
European perspective, Journal of Indo-European studies 1/2. Historical Linguistics (London: Routledge), 598–626.
GRIGORIEV 2021b HEYD 2016
Grigoriev, S.A., The evolution of antler and bone cheekpieces Heyd, V., Das Zeitalter der Ideologien: Migration,
from the Balkan-Carpathian region to Central Kazakhstan: Interaktion und Expansion im prähistorischen Europa des
4. und 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. Transitional landscapes: the
chronology of “chariot” cultures and Mycenaean Greece,
3rd millennium BC in Europe. In: Furholt, M./Großmann,
Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology 8/2, 148–189.
R./Szmyt, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the International
GRIGORIEV 2021c Workshop “Socio-Environmental Dynamics over the Last
Grigoriev, S., Andronovo Problem: Studies of Cultural 12,000 Years: The Creation of Landscapes III (15th – 18th April

Studies
2013)” in Kiel (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt), 53–84. migracii v Cirkum-pontijskoj stepi i Central’noj Evrope v
HEYD 2021 epohu paleometalla i problema genezisa yamnoj kul’tury
[Pendulum migrations in the Circumpontic steppe and
Heyd, V., Yamnaya, Corded Wares, and Bell Beakers on
Central Europe in the era of paleometal and the problem of
the move. In: Heyd, V./Kulcsár, G./Preda-Bălănică, B.
the Yamnaya culture genesis], Arheologiya i davnya istoriya
(eds.), Yamnaya interactions. Proceedings of the International
Ukraїni [Archeology and old history of Ukraine] 26/1, 101–
Workshop held in Helsinki, 25–26 April 2019 (Budapest:
146.
Archaeolingua), 383–414.
JURAS et alii 2018
HEYD et alii 2018
Juras, A./Chyleński, M./Ehler, E./Malmström, H./
Heyd, V./Fokkens, H./Kristiansen, K./Sjögren, K.- Żurkiewicz, D./Włodarczak, P./Wilk, S./Peška, J./Fojtík,
G., SI 1. Archaeological background of the Beaker P./Králík, M./Libera, J./Bagińska, J./Tunia, K./Klochko,
Complex, Nature 555, 190–196. V.I./Dabert, M./Jakobsson, M./Kośko, A., Mitochondrial
HORVÁTH/SVINGOR 2015 genomes reveal an east to west cline of steppe ancestry
Horváth, T./Svingor, É., The spatial and chronological in Corded Ware populations, Nature, Scientific Reports,
distribution of the so-called “Baden culture”. In: Nowak, 8:11603.
M./Zastawny, A. (eds.), The Baden culture around the KAISER 2016
Western Carpathians, Via Archaeologica. Źródła z badań Kaiser, E., Migrationen von Ost nach West. Die Archäologie
wykopaliskowych na trasie autostrady A4 w Małopolsce von Wanderungsbewegungen im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr.,
(Kraków: Krakowski Zespół do Badań Autostrad, Instytut Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie,
Archeologii Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, Instytut Ethnologie und Urgeschichte 37, 31–44.
Archeologii i Etnologii PAN Oddział w Krakowie, Muzeum
KAISER/WINGER 2015
Archeologiczne w Krakowie), 19–74.
Kaiser, E./Winger, K., Pit graves in Bulgaria and the
IVANOV 1988
Yamnaya Culture, Praehistorische Zeitschrift 90/1-2, 114–
Ivanov, V.V., Drevnevostochnye svyazi etrusskogo yazyka 140.
[Near Eastern relations of the Etruscan language]. In:
KATIČIĆ 1976
Bongard-Levin, G.M./Ardzinba, V.G. (eds.), Drevnij Vostok:
etnokul’turnye svyazi [Ancient East: ethnocultural relations] Katičić, R., Ancient Languages of the Balkans (The Hague,
(Moscow: Nauka), 215–216. Paris: De Gruyter Mouton).
IVANOVA et alii 2014 KENYON 1971
Ivanova, S./Kos’ko, O./Vlodarchak, P., Komponent Kenyon, K.M., Syria and Palestina c. 2160–1780 BC.
traditsiї shnurovoї keramiki. Amfory u pokhovannyakh The Archaeological Sites. In: Edwards, I.E.S./Gadd, C.J./
yamnoї kul’tury pivnichno-zakhidnogo Prichornomor’ya Hammond, N.G.L. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient History, I/2
[Component of the Corded Ware traditions. Amphorae (Cambridge: University Press), 532–594.
in burials of Yamnaya culture in the North-west Pontic]. KLEIN 2017
In: Kosko, A./Potupczyk, M./Razumow, S. (eds.), Klein, L.S., Yamnaya, ne yamnaya (obzor sovremennykh
Naddniestrzanskie kompleksy cmentarzysk kurhanowych rabot o kurgannykh pogrebeniyakh Podunav’ya), Stratum
spolecznosci z III i z pierwszejpolowy II tysiqcleciaprzed Chr. plus 2, 361–378.
w okolicach Jampola, obwod winnicki. Z badan nadpolnocno-
KLOCHKO/KLOCHKO 2013
zachodniq rubiezq osadnictwa spolecznosci krggu kultur
„wczesnobrqzowych” strefypontyjskiej (Poznan: Nauka i Klochko, V./Klochko, L., Complex of Metal Goods between
innowacje), 351–386. the Vistula and Dnieper Rivers at the turn of the 4th/3rd
to the 3rd millennium BC. Concept of the Carpathian –
IVANOVA 2009
Volhynia “Willow Leaf” Metallurgy Centre, Baltic-Pontic
Ivanova, S.V., Istoricheskie processy v yugo-vostochnoi Studies 18, 39–71.
Evrope (eneolit - rannii bronzovyi vek) [Historical processes
KLOCHKO et alii 2014
in southeastern Europe (Eneolithic – Early Bronze Age)].
In: Morgunova, N.L. (ed.), Problemy izucheniya kul’tur Klochko, V./Kos’ko, O./Razumov, S./Vlodarchak, P.,
rannego bronzovogo veka stepnoi zony Vostochnoi Evropy Problema dnistrovs’ko-vislins’kogo shlyakhu u baltiis’kikh
[Problems of studying the cultures of the early Bronze Age intruziyakh yamnoї i katakombnoї kul’tur. Suchasnii
in the steppe zone of Eastern Europe] (Orenburg: OGPU), stan doslidzhen’. In: Kosko, A./Potupczyk, M./Razumow,
49–58. S. (eds.), Naddniestrzanskie kompleksy cmentarzysk
kurhanowych spolecznosci z III i z pierwszejpolowy II
IVANOVA 2012 tysiqcleciaprzed Chr. w okolicach Jampola, obwod winnicki. Z
Ivanova, S.V., Ob istokakh formirovaniya Budzhakskoi badan nadpolnocno-zachodniq rubiezq osadnictwa spolecznosci
kul’tury [On the origins of the Budjak culture]. In: Tolochko, krggu kultur „wczesnobrqzowych” strefypontyjskiej (Poznan:
P.P. et alii (eds.), Starozhitnosti stepovogo Prichornomor’ya i Nauka i innowacje), 388–398.
Krimu, XVI (Zaporizhzhya: University), 18–47. KLOEKHORST 2016
IVANOVA 2021 Kloekhorst, A., The Anatolian stop system and the Indo-
Ivanova, S.V., Istoriya naseleniya Severo-Zapadnogo Hittite hypothesis, Indogermanische Forschungen 121/1,
Prichernomor’ya v kontse IV–III tys. do n.e. [The history of the 213–247.
population of the North-Western Black Sea region at the KOS’KO/RAZUMOV 2014
end of the IV-III millennium BC] (Zhitomir: Buk-Druk).
Kos’ko, O./Razumov, S., Visnovki. In: Kosko, A./Potupczyk,
IVANOVA/NIKITIN/KIOSAK 2018 M./Razumow, S. (eds.), Naddniestrzanskie kompleksy
Ivanova, S.V./Nikitin, A.G./Kiosak, D.V., Mayatnikovye cmentarzysk kurhanowych spolecznosci z III i z pierwszejpolowy

Studies
II tysiqcleciaprzed Chr. w okolicach Jampola, obwod winnicki. Z kul’tury Babino [Experience in Revealing Spatial-Semantic
badan nadpolnocno-zachodniq rubiezq osadnictwa spolecznosci Structures in the Funeral Rite of the Babino Culture]. In:
krggu kultur „wczesnobrqzowych” strefypontyjskiej (Poznan: Evglevskii, A.V. (ed.), Strukturno-semioticheskie issledovaniya
Nauka i innowacje), 399–400. v arkheologii 3 (Donetsk: DonNU), 215–236.
KOZAK 1993 LOPATIN 2012
Kozak, D.N., Pshevorskaya kul’tura. In: Rusanova, I.P. Lopatin, V.A., Vol’sko-lbishchenskii vektor kul’turogeneza
Symanovich, E.A. (eds.), Slavyane i ikh sosedi v kontse I [Volsk-Lbischche vector of cultural genesis],
tysyacheletiya do n.e. – pervoi polovine I tysyacheletiya n.e. Arkheologicheskoe nasledie Saratovskogo kraya, 10 (Saratov:
Arheologiya SSSR [Slavs and their neighbors at the end of Poligrafia Povolzhya), 56–78.
the millennium BC - the first half of the millennium A.D. LUTTEROPP 2009
Archeology of the USSR] (Moscow: Nauka), 53–66.
Lutteropp, K., Untersuchungen zu weiblichen und männlichen
KOZAK 2008 Bestattungen der Frühen Bronzezeit: Bestattungsgemeinschaften
Kozak, D.N., Venedi (Kiev: IA NAN). mit bipolar geschlechtsdifferenzierten Bestattungssitten und
KRAHE 1964 ihre Sozialstrukturen im Raum Niederösterreich. Dissertation
Krahe, H., Unsere ältesten Flussnamen (Wiesbaden: (Bonn).
Harrassowitz). LYTVYNENKO 2013
KRAINOV 1987 Lytvynenko, R.O., Central European parallels to the
Krainov, D.A., 1987, Fat‘yanovskaya kul‘tura, In: Bader, Dnieper-Don centre of Babyno Culture, Baltic-Pontic studies
O.N./Krainov, D.A./Kosarev, M.F. (eds.), Epokha bronzy 18, 121–138.
lesnoi polosy SSSR [Bronze Age of the forest belt] (Moscow: MACHINSKII 1989
Nauka), 58–76. Machinskii, D.A., Territoriya «Slavyanskoi prarodiny» v
KRAINOV/GADZYATSKAYA 1987 sisteme geograficheskogo i istoriko-kul’turnogo chleneniya
Krainov, D.A./Gadzyatskaya, O.S., Fat‘yanovskaya kul‘tura. Evrazii v VIII v. do n. e. - XI v. n. e. (kontury kontsepcii)
Yaroslavskoe Povolzh‘e, Svod arkheologicheskikh istochnikov [The territory of the “Slavic homeland” in the system of
[Fatyanovo culture. Yaroslavl Volga region, Archaeological geographical and historical-cultural division of Eurasia
sources] (Moscow: Nauka). in the VIII century BC – XI century AD]. In: Gerd, A.S./
Lebedev, G.S. (eds.), Slavyane: etnogenez i etnicheskaya
KRENKE 2019
istoriya (mezhdisciplinarnye issledovaniya) (Leningrad:
Krenke, N.A., Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya fat‘yanovskoi Nauka), 120–130.
kul‘tury, Rossiiskaya Arkheologiya 2, 110–116.
MAKAROWICZ 2003
KUKLIN 2001
Makarowicz, P., Northern and southern Bell Beakers in
Kuklin, A.N., Gidronimikon Volgo-Kam‘ya na -sa, -za, Poland. In: Czebreszuk, J./Szmyt, M. (eds.), The Northeast
Linguistica Uralica XXXVII/1, 10–22. Frontier of Bell Beakers (Oxford: British Archaeological
KUZNETSOV 2003 Reports), 137–154.
Kuznetsov, P.F., K voprosu o khronologii abashevskoi kul‘tury. MALLORY 1989
In: Abashevskaya kul‘turno-istoricheskaya obshchnost‘: istoki, Mallory, J.P., In Searh of the Indo-Europeans. Language,
razvitie, nasledie. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoi Archaeology and Myth (London: Thames & Hudson).
konferencii [Abashevo cultural and historical community:
MALLORY/ADAMS 1997
origins, development, heritage. Materials of the
international scientific conference] (Cheboksary: Chuvash. Mallory, J.P./Adams, D.Q. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Indo-
Gos. Inst. Gum. Nauk), 86–88. European Culture (London: Routledge).
LIBRADO et alii 2021 MANZURA 2016
Librado, P. et alii, The origins and spread of domestic horses Manzura, I.V., North Pontic steppes at the end of the 4th
from the Western Eurasian steppes, Nature 598, 1–24. millenium BC: the epoch of broken borders. In: Zanoci,
A./Kaiser, E./Kashuba, M./Izbitser, E./Băţ, M. (eds.),
LINDERHOLM et alii 2020
Man, Culture and Society from the Copper Age until the Early
Linderholm, A./Kilinç, G.M./Szczepanek, A./Włodarczak, Iron Age in Northern Eurasia. Contributions in honour of the
P./Jarosz, P./Belka, Z./Dopieralska, J./Werens, K./Górski, 60th anniversary of Eugen Sava. Tyragetia International 1
J./Mazurek, M./Hozer, M./Rybicka, M./Ostrowski, M./ (Chișinău: Bons Offices), 149–171.
Bagińska, J./Koman, W./Rodríguez–Varela, R./Storå, J./
Götherström, A./Krzewińska, M., Corded Ware cultural MARAN 1998
complexity uncovered using genomic and isotopic analysis Maran, J., Kulturwandel auf dem griechischen Festland und
from southeastern Poland, Nature, Scientific Reports, den Kykladen im späten 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr.: Studien zu den
10:6885, Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020- kulturellen Verhältnissen in Südosteuropa und dem zentralen
63138-w. sowie östlichen Mittelmeerraum in der späten Kupfer- und
LISSNER 2004 frühen Bronzezeit (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt).
Lißner, B., Zu den frühbronzezeitlichen Gruppen in MATHIESON et alii 2015
Süddeutschland, Leipziger online-Beiträge zur Ur- und Mathieson, I., et alii, Genome-wide patterns of selection in
Frühgeschichtlichen Archäologie 13, 1–20. 230 ancient Eurasians, Nature 528, 499–503.
LITVINENKO 2006 MATHIESON et alii 2017
Litvinenko, R.A., Opyt vyyavleniya prostranstvenno- Mathieson, I., et alii, The Genomic History of Southeastern
semanticheskikh struktur v pogrebal’nom obryade Europe, “BioRxiv preprint”. Doi: http://dx.doi.

Studies
org/10.1101/135616. im Mittelelbe-Saale-Gebiet (4100 – 2700 v. Chr.) (Rahden:
MELLAART 1971 Leidorf).
Mellaart, J., Anatolia c. 4000–2300 BC. In: Edwards, I.E.S./ MUNCHAEV 1981
Gadd, C.J./Hammond, N.G.L. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient Munchaev, R.M., Kuro-arakskaya kul’tura [Kura-Arax
History I/2 (Cambridge: University Press), 363–416. culture]. In: Kushnareva, K.Kh./Markovin, V.I. (eds.), Epokha
METZINGER–SCHMITZ 2004 bronzy Kavkaza i Srednei Azii. Rannyaya i srednyaya bronza
Kavkaza, Archeologiya SSSR [The Bronze Age of the Caucasus
Metzinger–Schmitz, B., Die Glockenbecherkultur in Mähren
and Central Asia. Early and Middle Bronze Age of the
und Niederösterreich. Dissertation. Saarbrücken.
Caucasus, Archeology of the USSR] (Moscow: Nauka), 8–57.
MIMOKHOD 2013
NAPOL’SKIKH 1997
Mimokhod, R.A., Lolinskaya kul‘tura. Severo-zapadnyi
Napol’skikh, V.V. Vvedenie v istoricheskuyu uralistiku
Prikaspii na rubezhe srednego i pozdnego periodov bronzovogo
[Introduction to historical Uralistics] (Izhevsk: Udmurt
veka [Lola culture. Northwestern Caspian at the turn of
Institute of History, Language and Literature).
the middle and late periods of the Bronze Age] [Materialy i
issledovanya po arkheologii 16] (Moscow: Nauka). NEDOLUZHKO et alii, 2014
MIMOKHOD 2018a Nedoluzhko, A.V./Bulygina, E.S./Sokolov, A.S./Tsygankova,
S.V./Gruzdeva, N.M./Rezepkin, A.D./Prokhorchuk, E.B.,
Mimokhod, R.A., Paleoklimat i kul’turogenez v Vostochnoi
Секвенирование полного митохондриального генома
Evrope v kontse III tys. do n.e. [Paleoclimate and cultural
древнего человека, представителя новосвободненской
genesis in Eastern Europe at the end of the 3rd millennium
культуры, указывает на ее возможную связь с
BC], Rossijskaya Arkheologiya 2, 33–48.
культурой воронковидных кубков [Sequencing of the
MIMOKHOD 2018b complete mitochondrial genome of ancient man of the
Mimokhod, R.A., Vol‘sko-lbishchenskaya keramika Novosvobodnaya culture, indicates its possible connection
v pogrebal‘nyh kompleksakh: kul‘turnye markery ili with the Funnel Beaker culture], Acta Naturae 2(21)/6,
markery v kul‘turakh? [Volsk-Lbischche ceramics in burial 34–39.
complexes: cultural markers or markers in cultures?], NICHOLS 2019
Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiiskoi akademii
Nichols, J., Comments on Allan Bomhard, “The Origins
nauk 20/3, 223–233.
of Proto-Indo-European: The Caucasian Substrate
MIMOKHOD 2022 Hypothesis”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 47/1 & 2,
Mimokhod, R.A., Srednevolzhskaya abashevskaya kul‘tura 149–156.
i kul‘tura kolokolovidnykh kubkov: nabroski k semeinomu NIGRO et alii 2019
portretu [Middle Volga Abashevo culture and the Bell
Nigro, L./Calcagnile, L./Yasin, J./Gallo, E./Quarta, G., Jericho
Beaker culture: sketches for a family portrait], Arkheologiya
and the Chronology of Palestine in the Early Bronze Age: A
evraziiskikh stepei 2, 122–150.
Radiometric re-assessment, Radiocarbon 61/1, 211–241.
MOCHALOV 2008
NIKOLOV 1984
Mochalov, O.D., Keramika pogrebal‘nyh pamjatnikov epohi
Nikolov, V., Ranneneoliticheskie kul’tury v Zapadnoi
bronzy lesostepi Volgo-Ural‘skogo mezhdurech‘ja [Ceramics of
Bolgarii, Sovetskaya arkheologiya 2, 5–21.
burial monuments of the Bronze Age in the forest-steppe of
the Volga-Ural interfluve] (Samara: SGPU). NORDQVIST/HEYD 2020
MOLODIN et alii 2014 Nordqvist, K./Heyd, V., The forgotten child of the wider
Corded Ware family: Russian Fatyanovo Culture in context,
Molodin, V.I./Epimakhov, A.V./Marchenko, Zh.V.,
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 86, 65–93.
Radiouglerodnaya khronologiya kultur epokhi bronzy Urala
i yuga Zapadnoy Sibiri: printsipy i podkhody. dostizheniya OLALDE et alii 2018
i problem [Radiocarbon Chronology of the Bronze Age Olalde, I. et alii, The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic
Cultures of the Urals and the South of Western Siberia: transformation of northwest Europe, Nature 555, 190–198.
Principles and Approaches, achievements and challenges], OSTMO 1996
Vestnik Novosibirskogo universiteta. Seriya: Istoriya. Filologiya
Ostmo, E., The Indo-European Question in a Norwegian
13/3, 136–167.
perspective: a View from the Wrong End of the Stick? In:
MONTANARI et alii 1996 Jones-Bley, K./Huld, M. E. (eds.), The Indo-Europeanization
Montanari, G.B./Lucchese, A.L./Frontini, P./Gambari, of Northern Europe (Washington: Institute for the Study of
F.M./Kaufmann, G./Marzatico, F./Kokelj, M.M./Nicolis, F./ Man), 23–41.
Odetti, G./Pedrotti, A./Salzani, L., L’Italia settentrionale. ÖZDOGAN 1991
L’antica eta del bronzo. In: Cocchi Genick, D. (ed.), Atti
Özdogan, M. Eastern Thrace before the Beginning of Troy
del Congresso di Viareggio, 9-12 Gennaio (Firenze: Octavo F.
I – an Archaeological Dilemma. In: Lichardus, J. (ed.), Die
Cantini), 57–78.
Kupferzeit als historische Epoche. Symposium Saarbrücken und
MORGUNOVA 2014 Otrenhausen. T. I. (Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt), 217–225.
Morgunova, N.L., O kul‘turnom statuse i khronologii PALMER 1958
pamyatnikov repinskogo tipa v Zavolzh‘e i Priural‘e,
Palmer, L.R., Luvian and Linear A, Transactions of the
Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo centra Rossiiskoi akademii
Philological Society 57, 75–100.
nauk 16, 3(2), 585–591.
PAPAC et alii 2021
MÜLLER 2001
Papac, L. et alii, Dynamic changes in genomic and social
Müller, J., Soziochronologische Studien zum Spätneolithikum
structures in third millennium BCE central Europe, Science

Studies
Advances, 7: eabi6941. Arkheologiya SSSR [Slavs and their neighbors at the end of
PARPOLA 2012 the 1st millennium BC – the first half of the 1st millennium
AD, Archeology of the USSR] (Moscow: Nauka), 5–18.
Parpola, A., Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic
(Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: RYNDINA 2010
Revised and integrated ‘total’ correlations. In: Grünthal, Ryndina, N.V., Mednye nahodki Khvalynskogo I mogil’nika
R./Kallio, P. (eds.), A Linguistic Map of Prehistoric Northern (itogi tekhnologicheskogo issledovaniya [Copper finds of
Europe [Suomalais-Ugrilaisen Seuran Toimituksia/ the Khvalynsk cemetery (results of a technological study)].
Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 266] (Helsinki: In: Agapov, S.A. (ed.), Khvalynskie eneoliticheskie mogil’niki
Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura), 119–184. i khvalynskaya eneoliticheskaya kul’tura. Issledovaniya
PARZINGER 1993 materialov [Khvalynsk Eneolithic cemeteries and the
Khvalyn Eneolithic culture. Materials Research] (Samara:
Parzinger, H., Studien zur Chronologie und Kulturgeschichte
Povolzh’e), 234–256.
der Jungstein-, Kupfer- und Frühbronzezeit zwischen Karpaten
und Mittleren Taurus (Mainz am Rhein: Zabern). SAAG et alii 2021
PERNICHEVA 1995 Saag, L. et alii, Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze
Age transition in the East European plain, Science Advances
Pernicheva, L. Prehistoric cultures in the Middle Struma
7/4. DOI: 0.1126/sciadv.abd6535.
Valley: Neolithic and Eneolithic. In: Bailey, D.W./Panayotov,
I. (eds.), Prehistoric Bulgaria [Monographs in World SAFRONOV 1989
Archaeology 22] (Madison: Prehistory Press). Safronov, V.A., Indoevropeiskie prarodiny [Indo-European
PREDA–BĂLĂNICĂ et alii 2020 homelands] (Gor’kii: Volga-Vyatka publishing house).
Preda–Bălănică, B./Frînculeasa, A./Heyd, V. The Yamnaya SAUSVERDE 1996
Impact North of the Lower Danube: A Tale of Newcomers Sausverde, E., Seewörter and Substratum in Germanic,
and Locals, Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française Baltic and Baltic Finno-Ugric Languages. In: Jones-Bley,
117/1, 85–101. K./Huld, M. E. (eds.), The Indo-Europeanization of Northern
PRYAKHIN/KHALIKOV 1987 Europe (Washington: Institute for the Study of Man), 133–
146.
Pryakhin, A.D./Khalikov, A.Kh., Abashevskaya kul’tura
[Abashevo culture]. In: Bader, O.N./Krainov, D.A./Kosarev, SCHRIJVER 2018
M.F. (eds.), Epokha bronzy lesnoi polosy SSSR [Bronze Age of Schrijver, P., Talking Neolithic: The Case for Hatto-Minoan
the forest belt] (Moscow: Nauka), 124–131. and its Relationship to Sumerian. In: Kroonen, G./Mallory,
RASSAMAKIN 1994 J.P./Comrie B. (eds.), Talking Neolithic (Washington: The
Institute for the Study of Man), 336–74.
Rassamakin, Yu., The main directions of the development
of early pastoral societies of Northern Pontic zone: 4500- SCORRANO et alii 2021
2450 B.C. (Pre-Yamnaya cultures and Yamnaya culture), Scorrano, G./Yediay, F.E./Pinotti, T./Feizabadifarahani,
Baltic-Pontic Studies 2, 29–70. M./Kristiansen, K., The genetic and cultural impact of the
RASSAMAKIN 2012 Steppe migration into Europe, Annals of Human Biology
48/3, 223–233.
Rassamakin, Yu., Eneolithic Burial Mounds in the Black
Sea Steppe: from the First Burial Symbols to Monumental SEDOV 1982
Ritual Architecture. In: Borgna, E./Müller Celka, S. (eds.), Sedov, V.V., Vostochnye slavyane v VII-XIII vv., Arkheologiya
Ancestral Landscape. Burial mounds in the Copper and Bronze SSSR [Eastern Slavs in the VIII-XIII centuries, Archeology
Ages (Central and Eastern Europe – Balkans – Adriatic of the USSR] (Moscow: Nauka).
– Aegean, 4th-2nd millennium B.C.). Proceedings of the SEDOV 1987
International Conference held in Udine, May 15th-18th 2008
Sedov, V.V., Balty [Balts]. In: Sedov, V.V. (ed.), Finno-ugry i
[Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.
balty v epokhu srednevekov’ya, Arkheologiya SSSR [Finno-
Série recherches archéologiques, 58] (Lyon: Maison de
Ugrians and Balts in the Middle Ages, Archeology of the
l’Orient et de la Méditerranée Jean Pouilloux), 293–305.
USSR] (Moscow: Nauka), 353–419.
REGEV et alii 2012
SEDOV 2001
Regev, J./de Miroschedji, P./Greenberg, R./Braun, E./
Sedov, V.V., Litva i krivichi, Lietuvos Archeologija 21, 81–88.
Greenhut, Z./Boaretto, E., Chronology of the Early Bronze
Age in the Southern Levant: new analysis for a high SESTIERI 2010
chronology, Radiocarbon 54/3-4, 525–66. Sestieri, A.M.B., L’Italia nell’età del bronzo e del ferro. Dalle
RENFREW 1987 palafitte a Romolo (2200-700 a.C.) (Roma: Carocci editore).
Renfrew, C.A., Archaeology and language: The puzzle of Indo- SESTIERI 2013
European origins (London: Penguin Books). Sestieri, A.M.B., Peninsular Italy. In: Fokkens, H./ Harding,
REZEPKIN 2011 A. (eds.), The European Bronze Age (Oxford: University
Press), 632–652.
Rezepkin, A.D., Novosvobodnenskaya kul’tura (na osnove
materialov mogil’nika Klady), Trudy IIMK RAN XXXVII SOLOV’EV 2000
(Sankt-Peterburg: IIMK). Solov’ev, B.S., Bronzovyi vek Mariiskogo Povolzh’ya [Bronze
RUSANOVA 1993 Age of the Mari Volga Region] (Joshkar-Ola: MarNII).
Rusanova, I.P., Vvedenie [Introduction]. In: Rusanova, STAROSTIN 1982
I.P./Symanovich, E.A. (eds.), Slavyane i ikh sosedi v kontse Starostin, S.A., Praeniseiskaya rekonstruktsiya i vneshnie
I tysyacheletiya do n.e. – pervoi polovine I tysyacheletiya n.e., svyazi eniseiskikh yazykov [Pra-Yenisei reconstruction and

Studies
external relations of the Yenisei languages]. In: Ivanov, (eds.), The Indo-Europeanization of Northern Europe
V.V./Toporov, V.N./Uspenskii B.A. (eds.), Ketskii sbornik (Washington: Institute for the Study of Man), 166–189.
(Leningrad: Nauka), 144-137. WŁODARCZAK 2001
STAROSTIN 1988 Włodarczak, P., The Absolute Chronology of the Corded
Starostin, S.A., Indoevropeisko-severokavkazskie Ware Culture in South-eastern Poland. In: Czebreszuk, J./
izoglossy [Indo-European-North Caucasian isoglosses]. In: Müller, J. (eds.), Die absolute Chronologie in Mitteleuropa
Bongard-Levin, G.M./Ardzinba, V.G. (eds.), Blizhnii Vostok: 3000-2000 v. Chr. (Poznań–Bamberg–Rahden: Leidorf),
etnokul’turnye svyazi [Near East: ethnocultural relations] 103–129.
(Moscow: Nauka). WŁODARCZAK 2006
SUTER 2008 Włodarczak, P., Kultura ceramiki sznurowej na Wyżynie
Suter, P.J., Das endeneolithische Becher-Phänomenon – Małopolskiej (Krakow: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii
alternative Vorstellung. In: Dörfler, W./Müller, J. (eds.), Polskiej Akademii Nauk).
Umwelt – Wirtschaft – Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen WŁODARCZAK 2008
Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens
Włodarczak, P., Kultura Złocka i problem genezy kultury
(Neumünster: Wachholtz), 335–354.
ceramiki sznurowej w Małopolsce. In: Bednarczyk, J./
SZMYT 2003 Czebreszuk, J./Makarowicz, P./Szmyt, M. (eds.), Na
Szmyt, M., Verbreitung und Kontakte der pograniczu światów. Studia z pradziejów międzymorza
Kugelamphorenkultur: Ein Blick auf die polykulturellen bałtycko-pontyjskiego ofiarowane Profesorowi Aleksandrowi
Peripherien, Germania 81, 401–442. Kośko w 60. rocznicę urodzin (Poznań: Wydawnictwo
TASSI et alii 2017 Poznańskie), 511–532.
Tassi, F. et alii, Genome diversity in the Neolithic Globular WŁODARCZAK 2010
Amphorae culture and the spread of Indo-European Włodarczak, P., Dunajski szlak kultury grobów jamowych
languages, Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284: 20171540. a problem genezy kultury ceramiki sznurowej. In: Mente
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1540. et rutro. Studia archeologica Johanni Machnik viro doctissimo
VAITOVICH 2020 octogesimo vitae anno ab amicis, collegis et discipulis oblate
(Rzeszów: Ressoviae), 299–325.
Vaitovich, A.U., Kul’tura sharapadobnyh amfar na terytoryi
Zakhodnyaga Palessya: gistoryya vyvuchennya i suchasny WŁODARCZAK 2012
stan dasledavannyaў [The Globular Amphorae culture in Włodarczak, P. Die Gliederung der Schnurkeramik im
the territory of Western Polesie: the history and the current Zürcher Raum und in Mitteleuropa – Probleme der
state of studies], Chasopis Belaruskaga dzyarzhaўnaga Synchronisation. In: Boschetti-Maradi, A./De Capitani,
ўniversiteta. Gistoryya 2, 91–102. A./Hochuli, S./Niffeler, U. (eds.), Form, Zeit und Raum.
VASIL’EV 2003 Grundlagen für eine Geschichte aus dem Boden. Festschrift
für Werner E. Stöckli zu seinem 65. Geburtstag [Antiqua 50]
Vasil’ev, I.B., Vol’sk-Lbishche – novaya kul’turnaya gruppa
(Basel: Archäologie Schweiz), 127–138.
epokhi srednei bronzy v Volgo-Ural’e [Volsk-Lbische – a new
cultural group of the Middle Bronze Age in the Volga-Urals], WŁODARCZAK 2017
In: Abashevskaya kul’turno-istoricheskaya obshchnost’: Włodarczak, P., Battle-axes and beakers. The Final Eneolithic
istoki, razvitie, nasledie. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi societies. In: Urbańczyk, P. (ed.), The past societies. 5500 –
nauchnoi konferencii [Abashevo cultural and historical 2000 bc. Polish lands from the first evidence of human presence
community: origins, development, heritage. Materials to the early Middle Ages (Warszawa: Institute of Archaeology
of the international scientific conference] (Cheboksary: and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences), 275–
Chuvash. Gos. Inst. Gum. Nauk), 107–115. 336.
VENNEMANN 1994 WŁODARCZAK 2021a
Vennemann, Th., Linguistic Reconstruction in the Context Włodarczak, P., Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age barrows
of European Prehistory, Transactions of the Philolological in Vojvodina. In: Jarosz, P./Koledin, J./Włodarczak, P.
Society 92, 215–284. (eds.), Danubian route of the Yamnaya culture. The barrows of
WALLACE 2004 Vojvodina (Budapest: Archaeolingua), 215–256.
Wallace, R.E. Venetic. In: Woodard, R. (ed.), The Cambridge WŁODARCZAK 2021b
encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages (Cambridge: Włodarczak, P., Eastern impulses in cultural and
University Press), 840–856. demographic change during the end of the south-eastern
WANG et alii 2019 Polish Eneolithic. In: Heyd, V./Kulcsár, G./Preda-Bălănică, B.
(eds.), Yamnaya interactions. Proceedings of the International
Wang Chuan-Chao et alii, Ancient human genome-wide
Workshop held in Helsinki, 25–26 April 2019 (Budapest:
data from a 3000-year interval in the Caucasus corresponds
Archaeolingua), 435–462.
with eco-geographic regions, Nature communications. Doi.
org/10.1038/s41467-018-08220-8. YAKAR 1991
WILKES 1992 Yakar, J., Prehistoric Anatolia: The Neolithic Transformation
and the Early Chalcolithic Period (Tel Aviv: University Press).
Wilkes, J., The Illyrians (Cambridge, Ma.: Blackwell
Publisher).
WITCZAK 1996
Witczak, K.T., The Pre-Germanic Substrata and Germanic
Maritime Vocabulary. In: Jones-Bley, K./Huld, M. E.
View publication stats

Corded Ware Yamnaya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corded Ware Yamnaya

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corded Ware Yamnaya

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Article in Journal of Ancient History and Archeology · November 2022

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

No. 8No. 9.31/2022

ANCIENT HISTORY ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIAL

Annamária – Izabella PÁZSINT Stanislav GRIGORIEV

Design & layout:

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

CULTURAL GENESIS AND ETHNIC

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 43-84 43

44 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 45

46 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 47

48 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 49

50 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 51

52 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 53

54 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 55

56 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 57

58 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 59

60 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Fig. 5. Fatyanovo culture: 1, 3, 5 – Nikultsinsky cemetery; 2, 4, 14 – Voronkovskiy cemetery; 6–13 – Volosovo-Dani-

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 61

62 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 63

64 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 65

66 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 67

Types Late Eneolithic A0 A1a A1b A1c A2a A2b A2c B

Absence of ornaments in the form of willow leaf + + + + +

68 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Fig. 8. Areas of Fatyanovo, Balanovo and Abashevo cultures.

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 69

70 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 71

72 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 73

Attention is drawn to the

74 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 75

76 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 77

78 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

GRIGORIEV 2021b HEYD 2016

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 79

80 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 81

82 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022 83

84 Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology No. 9.3/2022

View publication stats

You might also like