Cited by 41Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesForensic and Genetic ResearchHistorical and Cultural Archaeology Studies

The Bioarchaeology of Kinship: Proposed Revisions to Assumptions Guiding Interpretation

Open access
Ensor, Bradley E., Irish, Joel D., Keegan, William F.·2017·Current Anthropology

Abstract

Bioarchaeology provides sophisticated techniques for estimating intra- and intercemetery biological relationships (i.e., biodistances), which can significantly expand anthropological research on kinship, explaining multiple dimensions of social life and identity in prehistory. However, some assumptions guiding the interpretation of results may need reconsideration. Although it is often assumed that descent groups should be homogeneous, social organizational and marriage practices actually produce heterogeneity within descent groups. Interpretations of postmarital residence typically assume that spouses are buried together in the same cemetery, whereas cross-cultural ethnographic patterns suggest that postmortem location does not universally follow residence. Nevertheless, cross-cultural data do indicate that postmortem location is generally predictable by type of descent group and whether membership with natal groups is maintained or transferred upon marriage. These issues are discussed, leading to alternative models on intra- and intercemetery biodistance expectations for matrilineal descent groups, for patrilineal descent groups with and without wives’ membership transfers, and for a range of smaller groups under bilateral descent. The influence of common marriage alliance systems on intra- and intergroup phenotypic heterogeneity versus homogeneity are also described. The proposed biodistance expectations for interpreting different kinship and marriage strategies may better position bioarchaeologists to engage other subfields and make substantial contributions to kinship research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1086/694584

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ethnologically derived models of kinship can significantly enhance interpretation of biodistances among interred individuals because burial location and companions differ as a function of kinship practices.

    “They point out that ethnologically derived models of kinship can significantly enhance interpretation of biodistances among interred individuals since where and with whom people are buried differs as a function of kinship practices.”

    From An Ethnological Analogy and Biogenetic Model for Interpretation of Religion and Ritual in the Past (2022) · cites this paper as Ensor, Irish, and Keegan 2017

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Ethnological models of religion can provide frameworks for inferring the nature of ritual practices revealed by burial goods, analogous to kinship models.

    “Just as cross-cultural models of kinship provide frameworks for interpretation of bioarchaeological data and making reliable inferences about aspects of social life in the past (i.e., kinship systems and marriage strategies [Ensor, Irish, and Keegan 2017]), so too can ethnological models of religion provide frameworks for inferring the nature of ritual practices revealed by burial goods.”

    From An Ethnological Analogy and Biogenetic Model for Interpretation of Religion and Ritual in the Past (2022) · cites this paper as Ensor, Irish, and Keegan 2017

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Ensor, Irish, and Keegan (2017) show cultural beliefs and practices are reflected in interment practices, and cross-cultural data on postmortem locations of males and females and their correspondence with marriage and descent group practices provide context for interpretation of bioarchaeological data.

    “Ensor, Irish, and Keegan (2017) show that cultural beliefs and practices are reflected in interment practices, and that cross-cultural data on postmortem locations of males and females and their correspondence with marriage and descent group practices provide context for interpretation of bioarchaeological data.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Ahmed, Akbar S. 1980. Pukhtun economy and society: traditional structure and economic development in a tribal society. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  2. Alt, Kurt W., Sandra Pichler, Werner Vach, Bohuslav Klíma, Emanuel Vlček, and Jürg Sedlmeier. 1997. Twenty-five thousand-year-old triple burial from Dolní Vĕstonice: an ice-age family? American Journal of Physical Anthro- pology 102:123-131.
  3. Bastian, Misty L. 1992. The world as marketplace: historical, cosmological, and popular constructions of the Onitsha market system. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services.
  4. Campbell, Lyle, and William J. Poser. 2008. Language classification: history and method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Carr, Christopher. 1995. Mortuary practices: their social, philosophical- religious, circumstantial, and physical determinants. Journal of Archaeo- logical Method and Theory 2:105-200.
  6. Collier, Jane F., and Sylvia J. Yanagisako, eds. 1987. Gender and kinship: essays toward a unified analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  7. De Laguna, Frederica. 1972. Under Mount Saint Elias: the history and culture of the Yakutat Tlingit. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
  8. Dozier, Edward. 1955. Kinship and linguistic change among the Arizona Tewa. International Journal of American Linguistics 21:242-257.
  9. Eggan, Fred. 1937. Historical changes to the Choctaw kinship system. Ameri- can Anthropologist 39(1):34-52.
  10. Ember, Carol R., and Melvin Ember. 1972. The conditions favoring multilocal residence. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 28:382-400.
  11. ---. 2013a. The archaeology of kinship: advancing interpretation and contributions to theory. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
  12. ---. 2013b. The crafting of prehispanic Maya kinship. Tuscaloosa: Uni- versity of Alabama Press.
  13. Fenton, William N. 1951. Locality as a basic factor in the development of Iroquois social structure. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 149:35-54.
  14. Fortes, Meyer. 1945. The dynamics of clanship among the Tallensi: being the first part of an analysis of the social structure of a Trans-Volta Tribe. London: Oxford University Press.
  15. ---. 1950. Kinship and marriage among the Ashanti. In African systems of kinship and marriage. A. R. Radcliffe-Brown and D. Forde, eds. Pp. 252- 284. London: Oxford University Press.
  16. ---. 1959. Primitive kinship. Scientific American 200(6):146-158.
  17. Fox, Robin. 1967. Kinship and marriage: an anthropological perspective. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Franklin, Sarah, and Susan McKinnon, eds. 2001. Relative values: reconfiguring kinship studies. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  19. Goldstein, Lynn G. 1981. One-dimensional archaeology and multi-dimensional people: spatial organization and mortuary analysis. In The archaeology of death. Robert Chapman, Ian Kinnes, and Klavs Randsborg, eds. Pp. 53-70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. Goody, J. 1996. Comparing family systems in Europe and Asia: are there dif- ferent sets of rules? Population and Development Review 22(1):1-20.
  21. Hirschon, Renee. 1989. Heirs of the Greek Catastrophe: the social life of Asia Minor refugees in Piraeus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Hunt, Muriel Eva Verbitsky. 1962. The dynamics of the domestic group in two Tzeltal villages: a contrastive comparison. PhD dissertation, University of Chicago.
  23. Hutchinson, Sharon E. 1996. Nuer dilemmas: coping with money, war, and the state. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  24. Irish, Joel D. 2010. The mean measure of divergence (MMD): its utility in model-free and model-bound analyses relative to the Mahalanobis D 2 dis- tance for nonmetric traits. American Journal of Human Biology 22:378-395.
  25. Janelli, Roger L., and Dawnhee Yim Janelli. 1982. Ancestor worship and Ko- rean society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  26. ---. 2016. Bioarchaeology and kinship: integrating theory, social relat- edness, and biology in ancient family research. Journal of Archaeological Research 24:75-123.
  27. Jones, Doug, and Bojka Milicik, eds. 2011. Kinship, language, and prehistory: Per Hage and the renaissance in kinship studies. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
  28. Kaut, Charles R. 1957. The Western Apache clan system: its origins and de- velopment. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
  29. Konigsberg, Lyle W. 1988. Migration models of prehistoric postmarital resi- dence. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 77:471-482.
  30. Korotayev, Andrey. 2003. Form of marriage, sexual division of labor, and post- marital residence in cross-cultural perspective: a reconsideration. Journal of Anthropological Research 59:69-89.
  31. Kuper, Adam. 1982. Lineage theory: a critical retrospect. Annual Review of Anthropology 11:71-95.
  32. ---. 1965. The future of kinship studies. Proceedings of the Royal An- thropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 1965:13-22.
  33. ---. 1982. The way of the masks. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
  34. McConvell, Patrick. 2012. Omaha skewing in Australia: overlays, dynamism and change. In Crow-Omaha: new light on a classic problem of kinship analysis. T. R. Trautmann and P. M. Whiteley, eds. Pp. 243-260. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
  35. McConvell, Patrick, and Ian Keen. 2011. The transition from Kariera to an asymmetrical system: Cape York Peninsula to North-East Arnhem Land. In Kinship, language and prehistory: Per Hage and the renaissance in kinship studies. D. Jones and B. Milicic, eds. Pp. 99-132. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
  36. McConvell, Patrick, Ian Keen, and Rachel Hendery, eds. 2013. Kinship sys- tems: change and reconstruction. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
  37. Mcllwraith, Thomas F. 1948. The Bella Coola Indians: volume one. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
  38. Peletz, Michael G. 1995. Kinship studies in late twentieth-century anthro- pology. Annual Review of Anthropology 24:343-372.
  39. Rattray, Robert S. 1929. Ashanti law and constitution. Oxford: Clarendon.
  40. Saxe, Arthur A. 1970. Social dimensions of mortuary practices in a Mesolithic population from Wadi Halfa, Sudan. PhD dissertation, University of Mich- igan, Ann Arbor.
  41. Sahlins, Marshall D. 2013. What kinship is-and is not. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  42. ---. 2003. Postmarital residence and biological variation at Pueblo Bonito. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 120:1-15.
  43. Schneider, David M. 1984. A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  44. Scott, G. Richard, and Christy G. Turner II. 1997. The anthropology of modern human teeth: dental morphology and its variation in recent human popu- lations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  45. Stefan, Vincent H. 1999. Craniometric variation and homogeneity in prehis- toric/protohistoric Rapa Nui (Eastern Island) regional populations. Ameri- can Journal of Physical Anthropology 110:407-419.
  46. Stojanowski, Christopher M., and Kathleen S. Paul. 2015. Performance analysis of deciduous morphology for detecting biological siblings. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 157:615-629.
  47. Szołtysek, M. 2015a. Households and family systems in early modern Europe. In Peoples and places, vol. 1 of The Oxford handbook of early modern Euro- pean history, 1350-1750, vol. 1: peoples and place. Hamish Scott, ed. Pp. 313- 341. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  48. ---. 2015b. Rethinking east-central Europe: family systems and co-residence in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Population, Famille et Société, vol. 21. Bern, Switzerland: Lang.
  49. Urban, Greg, and Jason B. Jackson. 2004. Social organization. In Southeast, vol. 14 of The handbook of North American Indians.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ensor, B. E., Irish, J. D., & Keegan, W. F.
Affiliations
Florida Museum of Natural History (US)
Corresponding author
Ensor, Bradley E.
Venue
Current Anthropology
Published
2017-12-02
Volume
58
Issue
6
Pages
739-761
ISSN
  • 0011-3204 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5382
OpenAlex
W2762721378
Cited by
41
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4
FWCI
12.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Anthropology (publishedVersion)
  • Liverpool John Moores University (acceptedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Forensic and Genetic Research
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Historical and Cultural Archaeology Studies
Keywords
kinship, biodistance, descent groups, postmarital residence, marriage practices, matrilineal descent, patrilineal descent, phenotypic heterogeneity, prehistoric social organization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review