Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-8gtf8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-27T19:50:24.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Kinship: politics and practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2021

Joanna Brück
Joanna Brück*
Affiliation:
School of Archaeology, University College Dublin, Ireland (✉ joanna.bruck@ucd.ie)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Debate
Information
Antiquity , Volume 95 , Issue 379 , February 2021 , pp. 249 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Booth, T., Brück, J., Brace, S. & Barnes, I.. In press. Tales from the supplementary information: ancestry change in Chalcolithic–Early Bronze Age Britain was gradual with varied kinship organisation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal.Google Scholar
Brück, J. 2019. Personifying prehistory: relational ontologies in Bronze Age Britain and Ireland. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198768012.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brück, J. 2021. Ancient DNA, kinship and relational identities in Bronze Age Britain. Antiquity 95: 228–37. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crellin, R.J. 2021. Making posthumanist kin in the past. Antiquity 95: 238–40. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ensor, B. 2021. Making aDNA useful for kinship analysis. Antiquity 95: 241–43. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frieman, C.J. 2021. Emergent or imposed? Antiquity 95: 247–48. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Furholt, M. 2021. Exploring human possibilities. Antiquity 95: 244–46. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2020.233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, J. 2019. From bits to bodies: perfect humans, bioinformatic visualizations and critical relationality, in TallBear, K. & Willey, A. (ed.) Critical relationality: Indigenous and queer belonging beyond settler sex and nature. Imaginations 10: 181–214. https://doi.org/10.17742/IMAGE.CR.10.1.7Google Scholar
Haraway, D. 2016. Staying with the trouble: making kin in the Chthulucene. Durham (NC): Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822373780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, R. 2020. Bronze Age worlds: a social prehistory of Britain and Ireland. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimmerer, R.W. 2013. Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge, and the teachings of plants. Minneapolis (MN): Milkweed Editions.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, C. 1963. Totemism. Boston (MA): Beacon.Google Scholar
Rifkin, M. 2011. When did Indians become straight? Kinship, the history of sexuality, and native sovereignty. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755455.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sissons, J. 2013. Reterritorialising kinship: the Māori Hapū. Journal of the Polynesian Society 122: 373–91. https://doi.org/10.15286/jps.122.4.373-392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
TallBear, K. & Willey, A. (ed.). 2019. Critical relationality: Indigenous and queer belonging beyond settler sex and nature. Imaginations 10(1). https://doi.org/10.17742/IMAGE.CR.10.1.1Google Scholar