2015
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.22738
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

United in death—related by blood? Genetic and archeometric analyses of skeletal remains from the neolithic earthwork bruchsal‐aue

Abstract: Although clear kinship relations among the infants remain unconfirmed, a relationship could also be indicated by the positioning of the bodies in the burial pit. Whereas a common cause of death might have been the presupposition for their special treatment, interpersonal relationships were likely the decisive factor for the multiple burial.

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
(58 reference statements)
0
17
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The maternal data gathered for the Gougenheim group (N = 21) were then grouped with the mtDNA data previously published for 9 individuals from the Michelsberg site of Bruchsal Aue in current Germany [23] and permitted the more precise description of the maternal gene pool of Michelsberg communities ("MICH" group, S6 Table). We then compared the MICH maternal pool, both at the haplogroup frequencies (PCA (S3 Table and Fig 3) and Ward Clustering (S1 Fig)) and at the haplotype composition levels (F ST values and MDS) with ancient H-G and Neolithic groups (see S2 Table and S2 Fig for details).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The maternal data gathered for the Gougenheim group (N = 21) were then grouped with the mtDNA data previously published for 9 individuals from the Michelsberg site of Bruchsal Aue in current Germany [23] and permitted the more precise description of the maternal gene pool of Michelsberg communities ("MICH" group, S6 Table). We then compared the MICH maternal pool, both at the haplogroup frequencies (PCA (S3 Table and Fig 3) and Ward Clustering (S1 Fig)) and at the haplotype composition levels (F ST values and MDS) with ancient H-G and Neolithic groups (see S2 Table and S2 Fig for details).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We selected farmers’ groups attributed to well-identified waves of Neolithization, i.e., starting with the Stärcevo groups for Central Europe and the Danubian wave of Neolithization and starting from the Cardial groups for the southern Mediterranean wave (see S6 Table). The Gougenheim group was gathered with the data published for the Michelsberg site of Bruchsal-Aue, in western Germany [23]. The global sequence dataset was divided into 16 chronological, geographical and cultural groups in order to discuss (i) the implication of different anterior groups in the Michelsberg gene pool constitution and (ii) the relationships of the Michelsberg group with contemporaneous and later populations.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Bold numbers 5 graves investigated; highlighted in grey 5 stone-lined graves; black line 5 5 meters scale. Sexing was conducted examining seven pelvic features and the index ischio-pubicus (Novotn y, 1972), as well as eight features of the skull and mandible (Ferembach, Schwidetzky, & Stloukal, 1979;R€ osing et al, 2005;Steckel, Larsen, Sciulli, & Walker, 2005 Sample preparation, aDNA extraction and analyses of mtDNA and Y-STRs were carried out as previously described (Keller et al, 2015;Seifert et al, 2013). Following Martin (1928), age at death was classified into the following stages: Infans I (0-6 years), infans II (7-12 years), juvenile (13-20 years), adult (21-40 years), mature (41-60 years), senile (60-x years).…”
Section: Sindelsdorf (Sd)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…viduals are not related") using the software Familias 3(Egeland, Mostad, Mevåg, & Stenersen, 2000;Kling, Tillmar, & Egeland, 2014) as previously described byKeller et al (2015). Individuals buried within one stone-lined grave were tested against each other.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%