Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:56:50.481Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making aDNA useful for kinship analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2021

Bradley E. Ensor
Bradley E. Ensor*
Affiliation:
SAC Department, Eastern Michigan University, USA (✉ bensor@emich.edu)
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. 241 - 243
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

Aberle, D.F. 1961. Matrilineal descent in cross-cultural perspective, in Schneider, D.M. & Gough, K. (ed.) Matrilineal kinship: 655–727. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google 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
Divale, W.T. 1974. Migration, external warfare, and matrilocal residence. Behavior Science Research 9: 75–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939717400900201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ember, C. 1974. An evaluation of alternative theories of matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. Behavior Science Research 2: 135–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/106939717400900202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ember, C., Ember, M. & Pasternak, B.. 1974. On the development of unilineal descent. Journal of Anthropological Research 30: 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1086/jar.30.2.3629640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ensor, B.E. 2013. The archaeology of kinship: advancing interpretation and contributions to theory. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Ensor, B.E. In press. The not very patrilocal European Neolithic: strontium, aDNA, and archaeological kinship analyses. Oxford: Archaeopress.Google Scholar
Ensor, B.E., Irish, J.D. & Keegan, W.F.. 2017. The bioarchaeology of kinship: proposed revisions to assumptions guiding interpretation. Current Anthropology 58: 739–61. https://doi.org/10.1086/694584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gomes, C. et al. 2017. Biological kinship analysis in extremely critical samples: the case of a Spanish Neolithic necropolis. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 6: e421–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigss.2017.09.154Google Scholar
Haak, W. et al. 2008. Ancient DNA, strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the later Stone Age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 105: 18226–31. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0807592105CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Juras, A. et al. 2017. Investigating kinship of Neolithic post-LBK human remains from Krusza Zamkowa, Poland using ancient DNA. Forensic Science International: Genetics 26: 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.10.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Knipper, C. et al. 2017. Female exogamy and gene pool diversification at the transition from the final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in Central Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 114: 10083–88. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1706355114CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, E.J. et al. 2012. Emerging genetic patterns of the European Neolithic: perspectives from a Late Neolithic Bell Beaker burial site in Germany. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 148: 571–79. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.22074CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, J.H. 1994. Putting anthropology back together again: the ethnogenetic critique of cladistic theory. American Anthropologist 96: 925–48. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1994.96.4.02a00110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sahlins, M. 2013. What kinship is—and is not. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, H.W. 2001. Filiation and affiliation. Boulder (CO): Westview.Google Scholar
Schroeder, H. et al. 2019. Unraveling ancestry, kinship, and violence in a Late Neolithic mass grave. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 116: 10705–10. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1820210116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims-Williams, P. 1998. Genetics, linguistics, and prehistory: thinking big and thinking straight. Antiquity 72: 505–27. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00086932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Souvatzi, S. 2017. Kinship and social archaeology. Cross-Cultural Research 51: 172–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397117691028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildcat, D., Sumi, I. & Deloria, V. Jr. 2004. Commentary: a response to Doug Jones. American Anthropologist 106: 641. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2004.106.3.641CrossRefGoogle Scholar