The Not Very Patrilocal European Neolithic : : Strontium, ADNA, and Archaeological Kinship Analyses.

• Author: Ensor, Bradley E.
• Place / Publishing House: Oxford : : Archaeopress,, 2021.; ©2021.
• Year of Publication: 2021
• Language: English
• Physical Description: 1 online resource (252 pages)

Two decades of strontium isotope research on Neolithic European burials - reinforced by high-profile ancient DNA studies - has led to widespread interpretations that these were patrilocal societies, implying significant residential mobility for women. This volume questions that narrative from a soci...

Table of Contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents Page
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Preface and Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Figure 1.1. Locations of Neolithic European sites discussed in text.
• Figure 1.2. Chronological distribution of sites discussed in text.
• Corporate Kin Groups, Marriage, Residence, and Postmortem Location
• Matrilineal descent groups
• Figure 2.1. Lineage memberships and biological relations after adopting a unilineal membership principle. Whether matrilineal (top) or patrilineal (bottom) most lineage comembers (black) lack close biological relations and most biological relations are ex
• Matrilineal groups and marriage
• Matrilineal groups and residence
• Figure 2.2. Kinship and community patterns. Settlements of unrelated extended families (A), lineages with separate settlements for sub-lineage families (B), lineages with single settlements (C), clans with multiple sub-clan lineage settlements (D), settle
• Matrilineal groups and postmortem location
• Patrilineal descent groups
• Patrilineal groups and marriage
• Patrilineal groups and residence
• Patrilineal groups and postmortem location
• Bilateral descent
• Bilateral descent and marriage
• Bilateral descent and corporate residential groups
• Bilateral descent with patrilocal corporate residential groups
• Bilateral descent with matrilocal corporate residential groups
• Bilateral descent with bilocal corporate residential groups
• Neolocality
• Intra-cemetery Strontium Isotope models
• Figure 2.3. Isotope Model 1: Three sets of kinship practices resulting in male homogeneity and female heterogeneity in strontium isotope ratios. Shaded areas represent different geological landforms with different strontium isotope ratios. The bold circle
• Sr Isotope model 1
• Sr Isotope model 2.
• Figure 2.4. Isotope Model 2: Two sets of kinship practices resulting in intra- and inter-sex homogeneity in strontium isotope ratios. Shaded areas represent different geological landforms with different strontium isotope ratios. The bold circle is the vil
• Sr Isotope model 3
• Figure 2.5. Isotope Model 3: Matrilocality and bilateral descent resulting in female homogeneity and male heterogeneity in strontium isotope ratios. Shaded areas represent different geological landforms with different strontium isotope ratios. The bold ci
• Figure 2.6. Isotope Model 4: Bilocality and bilateral descent resulting in intra- and inter-sex heterogeneity in strontium isotope ratios. Shaded areas represent different geological landforms with different strontium isotope ratios. The bold circle is th
• Sr Isotope model 4
• Intra-cemetery aDNA models
• aDNA Model 1. Matrilineal descent groups (regardless of residence)
• aDNA Model 2. Matrilocal residential groups with bilateral descent
• aDNA Model 3. Patrilineal descent groups without wives' membership transfers
• aDNA Model 4. Patrilineal descent groups with wives' membership transfers and patrilocality with bilateral descent
• aDNA Model 5: Bilocality and Bilateral Descent
• Strontium Isotopes in combination with aDNA
• Table 2.1. Kinship structured intra-cemetery aDNA patterns.
• Table 2.2. Expected compatibility in dental strontium ratio and aDNA models to narrow down or confirm interpretations.
• Special considerations for Neolithic Europe
• Neolithic European Kinship: Dental Strontium Isotope Ratios
• Iberia
• Table 3.1. Comparison of local, near-local, and nonlocal 87Sr/86Sr ratios for females and males at settlements and cemetery sites.
• Table 3.2. Percentages of females and males with nonlocal 87Sr/86Sr ratios at settlement and cemetery sites.
• Rhine Valley area
• Schwetzingen.
• Table 3.3. Percentage of sex-pooled local, near-local, and nonlocal 87Sr/86Sr ratios at settlements.
• Stuttgart-Mühlhausen
• Vaihingen
• Ensisheim les Octrois
• Upper Danube Valley
• Aiterhofen
• Dillingen
• Saale River tributary
• Lech Valley
• Western Carpathians region
• Vedrovice
• Nitra
• Kleinhadersdorf
• Pannonian Basin
• Summary and pooled assessment
• Table 3.4. Summary of interpretations based on 87Sr/86Sr ratios.
• Flomborn - implications of a colonizing cohort
• Mass burials
• Eulau
• Talheim
• Koszyce
• Conclusions
• Neolithic European Kinship: aDNA
• Iberia
• Alto Reinoso
• Table 4.1. Distribution of mtDNA haplogroups at Alto Reinoso (extracted from Alt et al. 2016: Table 1).
• Can Gambús
• Cova de l'Avellaner
• Grands Causses
• Paris Basin
• Table 4.2. Mitochondrial differentiations at Treilles (data from Lacan et al. 2011b: Table S2)
• Table 4.3. Shared haplotypes at Obernai (data from Rivollat et al. 2016: Supplemental Table 1).
• Rhine Valley
• Obernai
• Bruchsal-Aue
• Lech Valley
• Table 4.4. Variability in mtDNA based on haplogroup distinctions for the neighboring Lech Valley sites (using data from Knipper et al. 2017: Table 2).
• Inter-cemetery models
• Table 4.5. Shared haplotypes in the Lech Valley sites (data from Knipper et al. 2017: Table 3).
• Weser tributaries
• Saale tributaries
• Kromsdorf
• Karsdorf
• Vistula River
• Krusza Zamkowa
• Koszyce
• Table 4.6. 87Sr/86Sr Ratios and genetic relations among the individuals at the Koszyce mass grave (source: Schroeder et al. 2019).
• Conclusions
• 'Supporting Evidence'
• Associated behaviors
• Subsistence
• Table 5.1. Subsistence and descent (Aberle 1961: Table 17-4, reorganized by author).
• Residence and descent
• Nuclear families
• Table 5.2. Residence and descent (Pasternak 1976: Table 4-2, reorganized by author).
• Figure 5.1. Hypothetical biological nuclear family relations in cemeteries. Colors indicate first-degree biological relations. Cemeteries with nuclear family relations buried in spatial clusters (A-C): any set of kinship practices where spouses are buried
• Inequality and conflict
• Inequality
• Conflict
• Genes ≠ Languages ≠ Culture ≠ Kinship
• Phylogenetics
• Figure 5.2. Western perceptions of linguistic/cultural groupings versus ethnologically-known compositions and relations. Different shadings represent different linguistic or other cultural practices.
• Conclusions
• Archaeological Kinship Analysis
• Approaches to interpreting kinship
• Clans: neither extended families nor lines of descent
• Cross-cultural ethnology
• Cross-cultural research
• Not Ethnographic Analogy
• Practices, not social types
• Practices, not cultures
• Coded data?
• Correlations are not 'outdated'
• Residential groups
• Matrilocal residential groups
• Non-matrilocal residential groups
• Table 6.1. Patrilocal versus bilocal dwelling arrangements.
• Descent groups versus bilateral descent
• Table 6.2. Community patterns for descent groups versus bilateral descent.
• Descent and residence
• Figure 6.1. Material correlates of kinship practices. Idealized dwelling sizes and spatial distributions (top). Archaeological examples from Snaketown, Arizona, USA (below left) and Islas de Los Cerros, Tabasco, México (below right).
• Inferences on marriage systems
• Evaluation
• Methodological issues?
• Caveats for archaeology?
• Explanation
• Community variation and change
• Archaeological requirements
• Neolithic European Kinship: Archaeology
• Greece
• Iberia
• Figure 7.1. Settlement plans emphasizing houses at Ameal, Camino de las Yeseras, Niuet, and La Draga. (Redrawn and compiled from Bernabeu Aubán 1994: Figure 2.2.
• Blasco et al. 2007: Figure 2
• Jorge 2014: Figure 7
• Revelles 2017: Figure 1
• Tarrús 2008: fig
• Ameal
• Camino de las Yeseras
• Niuet
• La Draga
• Structures at other Iberian settlements
• Discussion
• Central Europe
• Longhouse living floor area
• Figure 7.2. Examples of proxy estimates for living floor areas in longhouses. The specific dwellings are features 380 and 400 from Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes (Redrawn from Gomart et al. 2015: Figure 1).
• A Kinship perspective on longhouses and settlements
• Figure 7.3. Settlement plan of Langweiler 8 contrasting ward versus row interpretations. The dashed lines illustrate ward interpretations. The solid lines illustrate row interpretations. (Redrawn and compiled from Rück 2009: figures 12 and 13). Numbers ar
• I. Dwellings and residence actions
• II. Residential groups
• III. Bilateral descent and descent groups
• Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes
• Figure 7.4. Settlement plans for three phases at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. (Redrawn from Gomart et al. 2015: Figure 1). Red shading indicates structures assigned to a phase. Grey shading indicates structures abandoned in the prior phase. Unshaded indicates st
• Table 7.1. Living floor area proxies for both construction assumptions at Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes.
• Elsloo
• Figure 7.5. Settlement plans for phases I b and I c at Elsloo. (Redrawn from Modderman 1975: Figure
• phase assignments are from Modderman 1970). Red shading indicates structures assigned to a subphase. Faded red shading indicates structures assigned to a
• Table 7.2. Living floor area proxies for both construction assumptions at Elsloo.
• Figure 7.6. Settlement plans for phases I d and II a-b at Elsloo. (Redrawn from Modderman 1975: Figure.
• phase assignments are from Modderman 1970). Red shading indicates structures assigned to a subphase. Faded red shading indicates structures assigned to.