The Bioarchaeology of Kinship: Proposed Revisions to Assumptions Guiding Interpretation

Abstract

The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of the record. Please see the repository URL above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.

Kinship and morphological similarity in the skeletal remains of individuals with known genealogical data (Bohemia, 19th to 20th centuries): A new methodological approach

“…Earlier, the term “kinship analysis” was frequently used in connection with this objective. However, in bioarcheology, the use of this term has been criticized (Johnson & Paul, ; Ensor et al, ). We can discuss the patterns of phenotypic similarity and the possibilities of their use for kinship analysis (Stojanowski & Hubbard, ).…”

Open sepulchers and closed boundaries? Biodistance analysis of cemetery structure and postmarital residence in the late prehispanic Andes

“…As with most bioarchaeological studies of postmarital residence, the approach used in this study assumes that the sex exhibiting greater phenotypic heterogeneity is the migratory sex (e.g., Konigsberg, ; Konigsberg & Frankenberg, ; Spence, ; Stojanowski & Schillaci, ; but see Ensor et al, ). Konigsberg and Frankenberg's () new mismatch method is preferred over Konigsberg's () determinant ratio analysis, which resamples across individuals rather than across traits.…”

“…The absence of significant differences between male and females could suggest that (a) neither sex regularly migrated after marriage; (b) marriage strategies were variable within or among social groupings; or, (c) in‐marrying spouses were returned to their natal community for burial (Ensor, ; Keegan, ). Possible social correlates will be scrutinized in light of recent challenges to the traditional assumptions of postmarital residence analysis (Ensor et al, ).…”

“…Bioarchaeology provides a robust methodological and theoretical framework for integrating diverse lines of evidence on the construction and embodiment of social identities (Knudson & Stojanowski, ; Torres‐Rouff & Knudson, ). Recent theoretical advances in the bioarchaeology of kinship have reinvigorated interest in biological distance analysis as a means of exploring how local patterns of biological relatedness intersect with and inform other affiliative and symbolic practices, such as body modification and funerary rituals (Ensor, Irish, & Keegan, ; Johnson & Paul, ; Stojanowski & Schillaci, ). By analyzing multiple lines of biocultural evidence through the lens of social theory, ethnography, and ethnohistory, bioarchaeologists can elucidate alternative configurations of “kin” and “community” in the past that are not limited by Western notions of biological kinship (Johnson & Paul, ; Meyer, Ganslmeier, Dresely, & Alt, ; Pilloud & Larsen, ).…”

Implications of Endogamy in the Southwest Eurasian Highlands: Another look at Jack Goody’s theory of production, property and kinship

“…Since the time Hann wrote, the themes that Goody discussed and Goody's own contribution, have indeed received renewed attention. The revival has come partly from archaeologists and has owed a great deal to technical developmentsincluding new ways of assessing biological relatedness and place of origin from human remains (Ensor, Irish, and Keegan 2017), and inferring kinship structure and degrees of inequality from the relative sizes and arrangement of buildings (Ensor 2017;Kohler et al 2017). The renewed interest has also come from evolutionary anthropologists, who have pioneered 'phylogenetic' ways of projecting social arrangements back into the past, based on an analogy between linguistic change and the Darwinian development of separate but related species.…”