Abstract
Family is a fundamental organizing aspect of human society, but family organization is understudied within bioarchaeology. Historically, bioarchaeological research has focused on kinship analysis, the reconstruction of biological relationships within archaeological contexts. Kinship analysis has generated important insights into past community organization and cultural practices, but it is rooted in biologistic and heteronormative values. As a result, traditional kinship research inadvertently emphasizes biological relatedness and nuclear family organization and limits our ability to recognize different ways of forming families.
In this chapter, I propose an alternative framework that facilitates a more inclusive approach to family organization in the past. By approaching family as a multiscalar form of social identity, integrating multiple lines of bioarchaeological data, and using analytical methods that do not prioritize biological data, bioarchaeological family research can potentially identify diverse forms of family organization in archaeological contexts. Bioarchaeologists can leverage the knowledge produced using this framework to contribute to public discussions of “the family,” destabilize contemporary common sense conceptions of kinship rooted in the perceived naturalness of the nuclear family, and promote more inclusive conceptions of relatedness and ways of forming families.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The separation of family, kinship, and relatedness is primarily a heuristic distinction; the three are inherently interconnected and somewhat difficult to consider in isolation. For example, the factors for identifying relatives in general (i.e., relatedness) and the rules for identifying specific kin (i.e., kinship) strongly influence the composition of one’s family.
- 2.
“Family” is a broad term that has long encompassed a variety of definitions, including (1) persons related by blood or marriage (kin in a broad sense), (2) a lineage or house (i.e., those descended from the same stock or blood), or (3) all those living under the same roof including servants and other nonrelatives (Flandrin 1979). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “family” has multiple origins deriving in part from the French word famile (also famille and famelie) and the Latin word familia. However, the term is not a direct cognate of the Latin term familia in meaning; instead, the Latin domus is closer in meaning to what we consider family, as it typically referred to all those living in the household (Martin 1996; Nathan 2000; Saller 1984).
- 3.
The rise of economic inequality in the USA and elsewhere is one of the most important sociopolitical issues that we face (Beller and Hout 2006; Stiglitz 2012) and is strongly associated with family organization. Family background has a powerful influence on children’s opportunities and social class destinations (Cohen 2015). The family one is born into influences one’s life chances, the practical opportunity to achieve desired material conditions, and personal experiences (Weber 1946).
- 4.
Many scholars who were asked to comment on Kennett et al.’s findings were more focused on noting the ethical issues raised by their study (see Balter 2017).
- 5.
Pilloud’s research was first presented in her 2009 dissertation, but the discussion here draws from both her dissertation and the 2011 American Journal of Physical Anthropology article based on her dissertation research and coauthored with Clark Larsen, her PhD advisor.
- 6.
Pilloud and Larsen (2011, p. 527) note that small sample sizes may have prevented them from analytically identifying “familial patterns that were present.” However, the inverse – that increased sample sizes could make it more difficult to identify genetic relatives – is equally plausible. Stojanowski and Hubbard (2017, p. 824) note that given the limited variability in human dentition, including larger sample sizes in an analysis likely “will increase the noise in the resulting multivariate output” making it more difficult to identify genetic relatives.
- 7.
To be clear, I am not advocating an abiological approach to kinship, nor am I suggesting we abandon bioarchaeological kinship analysis altogether. I believe bioarchaeological kinship analysis will continue to make important contributions to our understanding of past societies, but the contributions will be limited in scope. I am advocating an approach that does not preferentially prioritize phenotypic and genetic data in the analysis of family relationships within archaeological contexts. Genetic relatedness may be a useful approach for investigating family and kinship in many historic and archaeological contexts, but the basis for family relationships should not be reduced to biological relatedness before the analysis has begun
References
Agarwal, S. C. (2012). The past of sex, gender, and health: Bioarchaeology of the aging skeleton. American Anthropologist, 114, 322–335.
Agarwal, S. C. (2017). Understanding sex- and gender-related patterns of bone loss and health in the past: A case study from the Neolithic community of Çatalhöyük. In S. C. Agarwal & J. K. Wesp (Eds.), Exploring sex and gender in bioarchaeology (pp. 165–188). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
Agarwal, S. C., & Glencross, B. A. (Eds.). (2011). Social bioarchaeology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Algee-Hewitt, B. F. B. (2016). Population inference from contemporary American craniometrics. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 160, 604–624.
Ambler, C. (2016, June 22). How to actually make America great again. Medium. Retrieved June 20, 2017, from https://medium.com/@dailyzen/how-to-actually-make-america-great-again-1bfe390b4acb
Alt, K. W., & Vach, W. (1995). Odontologic kinship analysis in skeletal remains: Concepts, methods, and results. Forensic Science International, 74, 99–113.
Alt, K. W., & Vach, W. (1998). Kinship studies in skeletal remains: Concepts and examples. In K. W. Alt, F. W. Rösing, & M. Teschler-Nicola (Eds.), Dental anthropology: Fundamentals, limits, and prospects (pp. 537–554). New York: Springer.
Alt, K. W., Pichler, S., Vach, W., Klíma, B., Vlček, E., & Sedlmeier, J. (1997). Twenty-five thousand-year-old triple burial from Dolní Věstonice: An Ice-Age family? American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 102, 123–131.
Alt, K. W., Benz, M., Müller, W., Berner, M. E., Schultz, M., Schmidt-Schultz, T. H., et al. (2013). Earliest evidence for social endogamy in the 9,000-year-old-population of Basta, Jordan. PLoS One, 8, e65649.
Alt, K. W., Benz, M., Vach, W., Simmons, T. L., & Goring-Morris, A. N. (2015). Insights into the social structure of the PPNB site of Kfar HaHoresh, Israel, based on dental remains. PLoS One, 10(9), e0134528. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134528
Astuti, R. (2009). Revealing and obscuring Rivers’s pedigrees: Biological inheritance and kinship in Madagascar. In S. Bamford & J. Leach (Eds.), Kinship and beyond: The genealogical model reconsidered (pp. 214–236). New York: Berghahn Books.
Baca, M., Doan, K., Sobczyk, M., Stankovic, A., & Węgleński, P. (2012). Ancient DNA reveals kinship burial patterns of a pre-Columbian Andean community. BMC Genetics, 13, 30.
Bamford, S. (2004). Conceiving relatedness: Non-substantial relations among the Kamea of Papua New Guinea. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10, 287–306.
Bamford, S. (2009). ‘Family trees’ among the Kamea of Papua New Guinea: A non-genealogical approach to imagining relatedness. In S. Bamford & J. Leach (Eds.), Kinship and beyond: The genealogical model reconsidered (pp. 159–174). New York: Berghahn Books.
Bamford, S., & Leach, J. (2009). Pedigrees of knowledge: Anthropology and the genealogical method. In S. Bamford & J. Leach (Eds.), Kinship and beyond: The genealogical model reconsidered (pp. 1–23). New York: Berghahn Books.
Baustian, K. M. (2014). Interpreting skeletal trauma and violence at Grasshopper Pueblo (AD 1275–1400). In D. L. Martin & C. P. Anderson (Eds.), Bioarchaeological and forensic perspectives on violence: How violent death is interpreted from skeletal remains (pp. 192–215). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Baumann, G. (1995). Managing a polyethnic milieu: Kinship and interaction in a London suburb. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 1, 725–741.
Blackwood, E. (2005). Wedding bell blues: Marriage, missing men, and matrifocal follies. American Ethnologist, 32, 3–19.
Bodenhorn, B. (2000). ‘He used to be my relative’: Exploring the bases of relatedness among Iñupiat of northern Alaska. In J. Carsten (Ed.), Cultures of relatedness: New approaches to the study of kinship (pp. 128–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bouquet, M. (1993). Reclaiming English kinship: Portuguese refractions of British kinship theory. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Bouquet, M. (1996). Family trees and their affinities: The visual imperative of the genealogical diagram. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 2, 43–66.
Bouquet, M. (2001). Making kinship, with an old reproductive technology. In S. Franklin & S. McKinnon (Eds.), Relative values: Reconfiguring kinship studies (pp. 85–115). Durham: Duke University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Balter, M. (2017, March 30). The ethical battle over ancient DNA. Sapiens. Retrieved Jun 22, 2017, from https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/chaco-canyon-nagpra/
Beller, E., & Hout, M. (2006). Intergenerational social mobility: The United States in comparative perspective. The Future of Children, 16(2), 19–36.
Bird-David, N. (2017a). Before nation: Scale-blind anthropology and foragers’ worlds of relatives. Current Anthropology, 58(2), 209–226.
Bird-David, N. (2017b). Us, relatives: Scaling and plural life in a forager world. Oakland: University of California Press.
Borneman, J. (2001). Caring and to be cared for: Displacing marriage, kinship, gender, and sexuality, In J. Faubion (Ed.), The ethics of kinship: Ethnographic inquiries (pp. 29-46). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Bower, B. (2017, February 21). Power may have passed via women in ancient Chaco Canyon society. ScienceNews. Retrieved Jun 22, 2017, from https://www.sciencenews.org/article/powermayhavepassedwomennewmexicosancientchacocanyonsociety
Buikstra, J. E., & Beck, L. A. (Eds.). (2006). Bioarchaeology: The contextual analysis of human remains. New York: Academic Press.
Buikstra, J. E., Frankenberg, S. R., & Konigsberg, L. W. (1990). Skeletal biological distance studies in American physical anthropology: Recent trends. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 82, 1–7.
Cadien, J. D., Harris, E. F., Jones, W. P., & Mandarino, L. J. (1974). Biological lineages, skeletal populations, and microevolution. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 18, 194–201.
Carleton, W. C., Connolly, J., & Collard, M. (2013). Corporate kin-groups, social memory, and “history houses”? A quantitative test of recent reconstructions of social organization and building function at Çatalhöyük during the PPNB. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 1816–1822.
Carsten, J. (1995). The substance of kinship and the heat of the hearth: Feeding, personhood, and relatedness among Malays in Pulau Langkawi. American Ethnologist, 22, 223–241.
Carsten, J. (1997). The heat of the hearth: The process of kinship in a Malay fishing community. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carsten, J. (2000). Introduction: Cultures of relatedness. In J. Carsten (Ed.), Cultures of relatedness: New approaches to the study of kinship (pp. 1–36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carsten, J. (2004). After kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Case, D. T. (2003). Who’s related to whom? Skeletal kinship analysis in Medieval Danish cemeteries. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Chappell, B. (2017). White House says Obama’s order on LGBTQ rights will stay in effect. NPR. Retrieved Jan 31, 2017, from http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/31/512606452/white-house-says-obamas-order-on-lgbtq-rights-will-stay-in-effect
Cohen, P. N. (2015). The family: Diversity, inequality, and social change. New York: W. W. Norton.
Collier, J. F., & Yanagisako, S. J. (Eds.). (1987). Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Coontz, S. (2016). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap (Rev. ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Coontz, S. (1997). The way we really are: Coming to terms with America’s changing families. New York: Basic Books.
de Pastino, B. (2017, February 21). Elite ‘dynasty’ at Chaco Canyon got its power from one woman, DNA shows. Western Digs. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from http://westerndigs.org/ancient-leaders-at-chaco-canyon-were-members-of-matrilineal-dynasty-dna-shows/
Deguilloux, M. F., Pemonge, M. H., Mendisco, F., Thibon, D., Catron, I., & Castex, D. (2014). Ancient DNA and kinship analysis of human remains deposited in Merovingian necropolis sarcophagi (Jau Dignac et Loirac, France, 7th–8th century AD). Journal of Archaeological Science, 41, 399–405.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (trans: Massumi, B.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
DePaullo, B. (2016). How we live now: Redefining home and family in the 21st century. New York: Atria.
Dowson, T. A. (2006). Archaeologists, feminists, and queers: Sexual politics in the construction of the past. In P. L. Geller & M. K. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology: Past, present, and future (pp. 89–102). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ember, M., & Ember, C. R. (1983). Marriage, family, and kinship: Comparative studies of social organization. New Haven, CT: HRAF Press.
Ensor, B. E. (2013). The archaeology of kinship: Advancing interpretation and contributions to theory. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Epstein, L., Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. (2016). President-Elect Trump and his possible justices. Report. Retrieved Feb 8, 2017, from http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/PossibleTrumpJustices.pdf
Fisher, H. E. (1992). The anatomy of love. New York: Fawcett Columbine.
Fortes, M. (1949). The web of kinship among the Tallensi: The second part of an analysis of the social structure of a Trans-Volta tribe. London: Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (trans: Hurley, R.). New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality, volume 1: An introduction (trans: Hurley, R.). New York: Pantheon.
Franklin, S., & McKinnon, S. (2000). New directions in kinship study: A core concept revisited. Current Anthropology, 41, 275–279.
Franklin, S., & McKinnon, S. (2001). Introduction. In S. Franklin & S. McKinnon (Eds.), Relative values: Reconfiguring kinship studies (pp. 1–25). Durham: Duke University Press.
Flandrin, J. (1979). Families in former times: Kinship, household and sexuality (trans: Southern, R.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gamba, C., Fernández, E., Tirado, M., Pastor, F., & Arroyo-Pardo, E. (2011). Ancient nuclear DNA and kinship analysis: The case of a medieval burial in San Esteban church in Cuellar (Segovia, Central Spain). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 144, 485–491.
Geggel, L. (2017, February 21). Moms rule! Excavation at Chaco Canyon reveals maternal lineage. Live Science. Retrieved Jun 22, 2017, from https://www.livescience.com/57953-chaco-canyon-rulers-maternal-lineage.html
Geller, P. L. (2005). Skeletal analysis and theoretical complications. World Archaeology, 37, 597–609.
Geller, P. L. (2009). Bodyscapes, biology, and heteronormativity. American Anthropologist, 111, 504–516.
Geller, P. L. (2017). The bioarchaeology of socio-sexual lives: Queering common sense about sex, gender, and sexuality. Cham: Springer International.
Gestsdóttir, H. (2014). Osteoarthritis in Iceland: An archaeological study. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Iceland, Reykjavík.
Godelier, M. (2011). The metamorphoses of kinship (trans: N. Scott). London: Verso.
Gowland, R. L. (2015). Entangled lives: Implications of the developmental origins of health and disease hypothesis for bioarchaeology and the life course. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 158(4), 530–540.
Gowland, R., & Knüsel, C. (2006). Social archaeology of funerary remains. Oxford: Oxbow.
Gregoricka, L. A. (2013). Residential mobility and social identity in the periphery: Strontium isotope analysis of archaeological tooth enamel from southeastern Arabia. Journal of Archaeological Science, 40, 452–464.
Haak, W., Brandt, G., de Jong, H. N., Meyer, C., Ganslmeier, R., Heyd, V., 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 USA, 105, 18226–18231.
Halcrow, S. E., & Tayles, N. (2008). The bioarchaeological investigation of childhood and social age: Problems and prospects. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 15(2), 190–215.
Halcrow, S. E., & Tayles, N. (2011). The bioarchaeological investigation of children and childhood. In S. C. Agarwal & B. A. Glencross (Eds.), Social bioarchaeology (pp. 333–360). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hamilakis, Y., Pluciennik, M., & Tarlow, S. (Eds.). (2002). Thinking through the body: Archaeologies of corporeality. London: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Harari, Y. N. (2015). Sapiens: A brief history of humankind. New York: Harper.
Harper, N. K., & Tung, T. A. (2012). Burial treatment based on kinship? The Hellenistic-roman and venetian-period tombs. In M. K. Toumazou, P. N. Kardulias, & D. B. Counts (Eds.), Crossroads and boundaries: The archaeology of past and present in the Malloura Valley, Cyprus, Annual of ASOR 65 (pp. 247–258). Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research.
Hawkey, D. E. (1998). Disability, compassion and the skeletal record: Using musculoskeletal stress markers (MSM) to construct an osteobiography from early New Mexico. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 8(5), 326–340.
Hayden, C. P. (1995). Gender, genetics, and generation: Reformulating biology in lesbian kinship. Cultural Anthropology, 10, 41–63.
Hefner, J. T., Pilloud, M. A., Buikstra, J. E., & Vogelsberg, C. C. M. (2016). A brief history of biological distance analysis. In M. A. Pilloud & J. T. Hefner (Eds.), Biological distance analysis: Forensic and bioarchaeological perspectives (pp. 3–22). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Herdt, G. (1987). The Sambia: Ritual and gender in New Guinea. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Hillson, S. W., Larsen, C. S., Boz, B., Pilloud, M. A., Sadvari, J. W., Agarwal, S. C., et al. (2013). The human remains I: Interpreting community structure, health and diet in Neolithic Çatalhöyük. In I. Hodder (Ed.), Humans and landscapes of Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000–2008 seasons, Çatalhöyük Research Project Volume 8; British Institute for Archaeology at Ankara Monograph 47; Monumenta Archaeologica (Vol. 30, pp. 339–396). Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Holland, M. (2012). Social bonding & nurture kinship: Compatibility between cultural and biological approaches. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.
Hollimon, S. E. (2011). Sex and gender in bioarchaeological research. In S. C. Agarwal & B. A. Glencross (Eds.), Social bioarchaeology (pp. 149–182). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hollimon, S. E. (2017). Bioarchaeological approaches to nonbinary genders: Case studies from native North America. In S. C. Agarwal & J. K. Wesp (Eds.), Exploring sex and gender in bioarchaeology (pp. 51–70). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
Holmes, J. T. (2009). When blood matters: Making kinship in colonial Kenya. In S. Bamford & J. Leach (Eds.), Kinship and beyond: The genealogical model reconsidered (pp. 50–83). New York: Berghahn Books.
Holy, L. (1996). Anthropological perspectives on kinship. London: Pluto Press.
Horowitz, K. (2017, February 21). Scientists find genetic evidence of matrilineal dynasty at Chaco Canyon. Mental Floss. Retrieved Jun 22, 2017, from https://mentalfloss.com/article/92462/scientists-find-genetic-evidence-matrilineal-dynasty-chaco-canyon
Hoshower, L. M., Buikstra, J. E., Goldstein, P. S., & Webster, A. D. (1995). Artificial cranial deformation at the Omo M10 site: A Tiwanaku complex from the Moquegua Valley, Peru. Latin American Antiquity, 6, 145–164.
Hrdy, S. B. (1999). Mother nature: Maternal instincts and how they shape the human species. New York: Ballantine Books.
Ingold, T. (2000). The perception of the environment: Essays on livelihood, dwelling and skill. London: Routledge.
Ingold, T. (2009). Stories against classification: Transport, wayfaring and the integration of knowledge. In S. Bamford & J. Leach (Eds.), Kinship and beyond: The genealogical model reconsidered (pp. 193–213). New York: Berghahn Books.
Johnson, K. M. (2016). Ethnicity, family, and social networks: A multiscalar bioarchaeological investigation of Tiwanaku colonial organization in the Moquegua Valley, Peru. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Johnson, K. M., & Paul, K. S. (2016). Bioarchaeology and kinship: Integrating theory, social relatedness, and biology in ancient family research. Journal of Archaeological Research, 24, 75–123.
Joyce, R. A. (2017). Sex, gender, and anthropology: Moving bioarchaeology outside the subdiscipline. In S. C. Agarwal & J. K. Wesp (Eds.), Exploring sex and gender in bioarchaeology (pp. 1–12). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
Kakaliouras, A. M. (2006). Toward a (more) feminist pedagogy in biological anthropology: Ethnographic reflections and classroom strategies. In P. L. Geller & M. K. Stockett (Eds.), Feminist anthropology: Past, present, and future (pp. 143–155). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Keesing, R. M. (1975). Kin groups and social structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Keim, C. (2017, March 17). Make America great again, one family at a time. Retrieved Jun 23, 2017, from http://monoblogue.us/2017/03/17/make-america-great-again-one-family-at-a-time/
Kelly, J. (2011). State healthcare and Yanomami transformations. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Kennett, D. J., Plog, S., George, R. J., Culleton, B. J., Watson, A. S., Skoglund, P., et al. (2017). Archaeogenomic evidence reveals prehistoric matrilineal dynasty. Nature Communications, 8, 14115. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14115
Killgrove, K. (2011a, April 6). Gay caveman! ZOMFG! Powered by Osteons. Retrieved Jun 20, 2017, from http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/2011/04/gay-caveman-zomfg.html
Killgrove, K. (2011b, October 21). Holding hands into eternity. Powered by Osteons. Retrieved Jun 23, 2017, from http://www.poweredbyosteons.org/2011/10/holding-hands-into-eternity.html
Killgrove, K. (2015, September 6). Ten boneheaded interpretations of ancient skeletons. Retrieved Jan 18, 2017, from Forbes.com.https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2015/09/06/10-bonehead-interpretations-of-ancient-skeletons/#4f44013ef02c
Killgrove, K. (2017, April 8). Is that skeleton gay? The problem with projecting modern ideas onto the past. Forbes.com. Retrieved Jun 20, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/kristinakillgrove/2017/04/08/is-that-skeleton-gay-the-problem-with-projecting-modern-ideas-onto-the-past/#4820f54830e7
Klapish-Zuber, C. (1991). The genesis of the family tree. I Tatti Studies: Essays in the Renaissance, 4, 105–129.
Klapish-Zuber, C. (2000). L’ombre des ancêtres: essai sur l’imaginaire médiéval de la parenté. Paris: Fayard.
Knudson, K. J., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2008). New directions in bioarchaeological research: Recent contributions to the study of human social identities. Journal of Archaeological Research, 16, 397–432.
Knudson, K. J., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2009). The bioarchaeology of identity. In K. J. Knudson & C. M. Stojanowski (Eds.), Bioarchaeology and identity in the Americas (pp. 1–23). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Konigsberg, L. W. (2000). Quantitative variation and genetics. In S. Stinson, B. Bogin, R. Huss-Ashmore, & D. O’Rourke (Eds.), Human biology: An evolutionary and biocultural perspective (pp. 135–162). New York: Wiley.
Lancaster, R. N. (2005). Text, subtext, and context: Strategies for reading alliance theory. American Ethnologist, 32, 22–27.
Larsen, C. S. (2003). Equality for the sexes in human evolution? Early hominid sexual dimorphism and implications for mating systems and social behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(16), 9103–9104.
Larsen, C. S. (2015). Bioarchaeology: Interpreting behavior from the human skeleton, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Larsen, C. S., Hillson, S. W., Boz, B., Pilloud, M. A., Sadvari, J. W., Agarwal, S. C., et al. (2015). Bioarchaeology at Neolithic Çatalhöyük: Lives and lifestyles of an early farming society in transition. Journal of World Prehistory, 28, 27–68.
Leach, J. (2003). Creative land: Place and procreation on the Rai Coast of Papua New Guinea. New York: Berghahn Books.
Leach, J. (2009). Knowledge as kinship: Mutable essence and the significance of transmission on the Rai Coast of Papua New Guinea. In S. Bamford & J. Leach (Eds.), Kinship and beyond: The genealogical model reconsidered (pp. 175–192). New York: Berghahn Books.
Lee, E. J., Renneberg, R., Harder, M., Krause-Kyora, B., Rinne, C., Müller, J., et al. (2014). Collective burials among agro-pastoral societies in later Neolithic Germany: Perspectives from ancient DNA. Journal of Archaeological Science, 51, 174–180.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1969). The elementary structures of kinship (Rev. ed.). In R. Needham (Ed.) (trans: Bell, J. H. & von Sturmer J. R.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Lovejoy, C. O. (1981). The origin of man. Science, 211(4480), 341–350.
Le Play, F. (1871). L’organisation de la famille. Paris: Alfred Mame et fils.
Leaf, M. J. (2013). The recognition of kinship terminologies as formal systems. Structure and Dynamics, 6(1), 1–17.
MacCormack, C., & Strathern, M. (1980). Nature, culture and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Malinowski, B. (1913). The family among the Australian Aborigines: A sociological study. London: University of London Press.
Mangan, J. E. (2016). Transatlantic obligations: Creating the bonds of family in conquest-era Peru and Spain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marks, J. (2015). Tales of the ex-apes: How we think about human evolution. Oakland: University of California Press.
Martin, D. B. (1996). The construction of the ancient family: Methodological considerations. The Journal of Roman Studies, 86, 40–60.
Martin, D. L. (1997). Violence against women in the La Plata River Valley (AD 1000-1300). In D. L. Martin & D. W. Frayer (Eds.), Troubled times: Violence and warfare in the past (pp. 45–75). Toronto: Gordon and Breach.
Martin, D., & Osterholtz, A. J. (2016). Introduction. In A. J. Osterholtz (Ed.), Theoretical approaches to analysis and interpretation of commingled human remains (pp. 1–4). Cham: Springer International.
Martin, D. L., Harrod, R. P., & Pérez, V. R. (2013). Bioarchaeology: An integrated approach to working with human remains. New York: Springer.
Matney, T., Algaze, G., Dulik, M. C., Erdal, Ö. D., Erdal, Y. S., Gokcumen, O., et al. (2012). Understanding Early Bronze Age social structure through mortuary remains: A pilot aDNA study from TitrişHöyük, southeastern Turkey. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 22, 338–351.
Mays, S., Gowland, R., Halcrow, S., & Murphy, E. (2017). Child bioarchaeology: Perspectives on the past 10 years. Childhood in the Past, 10(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/17585716.2017.1301066
Merlan, F., & Rumsey, A. (1991). Ku Waru: Language and segmentary politics in the Western Nebilyer Valley, Papua New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Meyer, C., Ganslmeier, R., Dresely, V., & Alt, K. W. (2012). New approaches to the reconstruction of kinship and social structure based on bioarchaeological analysis of Neolithic multiple and collective graves. In J. Kolár & F. Trampota (Eds.), Theoretical and methodological considerations in Central European Neolithic archaeology, BAR International Series (Vol. 2325, pp. 11–23). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Meyers Emery, K. (2011, October 25). Can you excavate love? Bones Don’t Lie. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/can-you-excavate-love/
Meyers Emery, K. (2013, October 8). Investigating kinship in an Early Medieval necropolis. Bones Don’t Lie. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/investigating-kinship-in-an-early-medieval-necropolis/
Meyers Emery, K. (2014, January 14). Post-mortal embraces in Siberia. Bones Don’t Lie. Retrieved June 21, 2017, from https://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/2014/01/14/post-mortal-embraces/
Morgan, L. H. (1871). Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: The Free Press.
Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas: A summary. Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh University Press.
Murray, C. (2012). Coming apart: The state of White America, 1960–2010. New York: Crown Forum.
Nathan, G. (2000). The family in late antiquity: The rise of Christianity and the endurance of tradition. New York: Routledge.
Novak, S. A. (2006). Beneath the façade: A skeletal model of domestic violence. In R. Gowland & C. Knüsel (Eds.), The social archaeology of human remains (pp. 238–252). Oxford: Oxbow Press.
Nuttall, M. (2000). Choosing kin: Sharing and subsistence in a Greenlandic hunting community. In P. P. Schweitzer (Ed.), Dividends of kinship: Meanings and uses of social relatedness (pp. 33–60). London: Routledge.
Ottenheimer, M. (1995). Why is there no kinship, Daddy? Human Mosaic, 28, 65–72.
Pálsson, G. (2009). The web of kin: An online genealogical machine. In S. Bamford & J. Leach (Eds.), Kinship and beyond: The genealogical model reconsidered (pp. 84–110). New York: Berghahn Books.
Paul, K. S., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2015). Performance analysis of deciduous morphology for detecting biological siblings. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 157, 615–629.
Paul, K. S., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2017). Comparative performance of deciduous and permanent dental morphology in detecting biological relatives. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 164, 97–116.
Paul, K. S., Stojanowski, C. M., & Butler, M. M. (2013). Biological and spatial structure of an Early Classic cemetery at Charco Redondo, Oaxaca. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 152, 217–229.
Perego, E. (2012). Family relationships in the late Bronze Age, Iron Age and early Roman Veneto (Italy): Preliminary considerations on the basis of osteological analysis and epigraphy. In R. Laurence & A. Strömberg (Eds.), The family in antiquity: Families in the Greco-Roman world (pp. 121–142). New York: Continuum International.
Perry, M. A. (2005). Redefining childhood through bioarchaeology: Toward an archaeological and biological understanding of children in antiquity. In J. E. Baxter (Ed.), Children in action: Perspectives on the archaeology of childhood, Archeological Papers No. 15 (pp. 89–111). Berkeley: American Anthropological Association, University of California Press.
Pietrusewsky, M. (2008). Metric analysis of skeletal remains: Methods and applications. In M. A. Katzenberg & S. R. Saunders (Eds.), Biological anthropology of the human skeleton (2nd ed., pp. 487–532). New York: Wiley.
Pilloud, M. A. (2009). Community structure at Neolithic Çatalhöyük: Biological distance analysis of household, neighborhood, and settlement. Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Pilloud, M. A., & Larsen, C. S. (2011). “Official” and “practical” kin: Inferring social and community structure from dental phenotype at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 145, 519–530.
Prevedorou, E., & Stojanowski, C. M. (2017). Biological kinship, postmarital residence, and the emergence of cemetery formalization at prehistoric Marathon. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 27(4), 580–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2582
Read, D. W. (2001). What is kinship? In R. Feinberg & M. Ottenheimer (Eds.), The cultural analysis of kinship: The legacy of David Schneider and its implications for anthropological relativism (pp. 78–117). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Read, D. W. (2007). Kinship theory: A paradigm shift. Ethnology, 46, 329–364.
Read, D. W. (2012) Cultural kinship as a computational system: from bottom-up to top-down forms of social organization. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 18(2), 232–253.
Redfern, R. C., & Gowland, R. L. (2012). A bioarchaeological perspective on the pre-adult stages of the life course: Implications for the care and health of children in the Roman Empire. In M. Harlow & L. Larsson Lovén (Eds.), Families in the Roman and late antique world (pp. 111–140). London: Continuum.
Ricaut, F.-X., Kolodesnikov, S., Keyser-Tracqui, C., Alekseev, A. N., Crubézy, E., & Ludes, B. (2006). Molecular genetic analysis of 400-year-old human remains found in two Yakut burial sites. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 129, 55–63.
Ricaut, F.-X., Auriol, V., von Cramon-Taubadel, N., Keyser, C., Murail, P., Ludes, B., & Crubézy, E. (2010). Comparison between morphological and genetic data to estimate biological relationship: The case of the Egyin Gol necropolis (Mongolia). American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 143, 355–364.
Rice, C. (2009). Imagining the other? Ethical challenges of researching and writing women’s embodied lives. Feminism and Psychology, 19(2), 245–266.
Rivers, W. H. (1910). The genealogical method of anthropological inquiry. The Sociological Review, 3, 1–12.
Rösing, F. W. (1986). Kith or kin? On the feasibility of kinship reconstruction. In A. R. David (Ed.), Science in Egyptology (pp. 223–237). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Sahlins, M. (2013). What kinship is—And is not. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Saller, R. P. (1984). Familia, domus, and the Roman conception of the family. Phoenix, 38(4), 336–355.
Salmon, C. A., & Shackelford, T. K. (Eds.). (2007). Family relationships: An evolutionary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmidt, R. (2012). Unraveling the population history of the Xiongnu to explain molecular and archaeological models of prehistoric Mongolia. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Montana, Missoula.
Schneider, D. M. (1968). American kinship: A cultural account. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schneider, D. M. (1972). What is kinship all about? In P. Reining (Ed.), Kinship studies in the Morgan centennial year. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society of Washington.
Schneider, D. M. (1984). A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sciulli, P. W., & Cook, R. A. (2016). Intracemetery biological variation at the Fort Ancient SunWatch Village. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 160, 719–728.
Sear, R. (2016). Beyond the nuclear family: An evolutionary perspective on parenting. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 98–103.
Service, E. R. (1962). Primitive social organization: An evolutionary perspective. New York: Random House.
Shapiro, W. (2014). Contesting Marshall Sahlins on kinship. Oceania, 84(1), 19–37.
Shimada, I., Shinoda, K., Farnum, J., Corruccini, R., & Watanabe, H. (2004). An integrated analysis of pre-Hispanic mortuary practices: A Middle Sicán case study. Current Anthropology, 45, 369–402.
Shinoda, K., Matzumura, H., & Nishimoto, T. (1998). Genetical and morphological analysis on kinship of the Nakazuma Jomon people using mitochondrial DNA and tooth crown measurements. Zooarchaeology, 11, 1–21.
Shryock, A., Trautmann, T. R., & Gamble, C. (2011). Imagining the human in deep time. In A. Shryock & D. L. Smail (Eds.), Deep history: The architecture of past and present (pp. 21–52). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Shenk, M. K., & Mattison, S. M. (2011). The rebirth of kinship: Evolutionary and quantitative approaches in the revitalization of a dying field. Human Nature, 22, 1–15.
Small, M. (1995). What’s love got to do with it? The evolution of human mating. New York: Random House.
Snoddy, A. M., Halcrow, S. E., Buckley, H. R., Standen, V. G., & Arriaza, B. T. (2017). Scurvy at the agricultural transition in the Atacama Desert (ca 3600–3200BP): Nutritional stress at the maternal-foetal interface? International Journal of Paleopathology, 18, 108–120.
Sofaer, J. R. (2006). The body as material culture: A theoretical osteoarchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality: How today’s divided society endangers our future. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Stojanowski, C. M. (2013). Mission cemeteries, mission peoples: Historical and evolutionary dimensions of intracemetery bioarchaeology in Spanish Florida. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Stojanowski, C. M., & Duncan, W. N. (2015). Engaging bodies in the public imagination: Bioarchaeology as social science, science, and humanities. American Journal of Human Biology, 27, 51–60.
Stojanowski, C. M., & Hubbard, A. R. (2017). Sensitivity of dental phenotypic data for the identification of biological relatives. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 27, 813–827.
Stojanowski, C. M., & Schillaci, M. A. (2006). Phenotypic approaches for understanding patterns of intracemetery biological variation. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 49, 49–88.
Strathern, A. (1973). Kinship, descent and locality: Some New Guinea examples. In J. Goody (Ed.), The character of kinship (pp. 21–33). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tallbear, K. (2013). Native American DNA: Tribal belonging and the false promise of genetic science. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Thompson, E. A. (1986). Pedigree analysis in human genetics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tilley, L. (2015a). Accommodating difference in the prehistoric past: Revisiting the case of Romito 2 from a bioarchaeology of care perspective. International Journal of Paleopathology, 8, 64–74.
Tilley, L. (2015b). Theory and practice in the bioarchaeology of care. Cham: Springer International.
Tilley, L., & Oxenham, M. F. (2011). Survival against the odds: Modeling the social implications of care provision to seriously disabled individuals. International Journal of Paleopathology, 1, 35–42.
Tilley, L., & Schrenk, A. A. (Eds.). (2017). New developments in the bioarchaeology of care: Further case studies and expanded theory. Cham: Springer International.
Torres-Rouff, C., & Knudson, K. J. (2017). Integrating identities: An innovative bioarchaeological and biogeochemical approach to analyzing the multiplicity of identities in the mortuary record. Current Anthropology, 58, 381–409.
Trautmann, T. R., & Whitley, P. M. (2012). Crow-Omaha: New light on a classic problem of kinship analysis. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Tucker, W. (2014). Marriage and civilization: How monogamy made us human. Washington, DC: Regnery.
Turkel, G. (1990). Michel Foucault: Law, power, and knowledge. Journal of Law and Society, 17(2), 170–193.
Van Vleet, K. E. (2008). Performing kinship: Narrative, gender, and the intimacies of power in the Andes. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Viveiros de Castro, E. (2009). The gift and the given: Three nano-essays on kinship and magic. In S. Bamford & J. Leach (Eds.), Kinship and beyond: The genealogical model reconsidered (pp. 237–268). New York: Berghahn Books.
Walker, P. L. (1997). Wife beating, boxing, and broken noses: Skeletal evidence for the cultural patterning of interpersonal violence. In D. L. Martin & D. W. Frayer (Eds.). Troubled times: Violence and warfare in the past (pp. 145–175). Toronto: Gordon and Breach.
Walrath, D. (2017). Bones, biases, and birth: Excavating contemporary gender norms from reproductive bodies of the past. In S. C. Agarwal & J. K. Wesp (Eds.), Exploring sex and gender in bioarchaeology (pp. 15–49). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico.
Waterson, H. R. (1986). The ideology and terminology of kinship among the Sa’dan Toraja. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 142(1), 87–112.
Waterson, R. (1995). Houses, graves and the limits of kinship groupings among the Sa’dan Toraja. Bijdragen tot de Taal-, Land- en Volkenkunde, 151(2), 194–217.
Weber, M. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in sociology (trans: Gerth, H. H. & Mills, C. W.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Weismantel, M. (1995). Making kin: Kinship theory and Zumbagua adoptions. American Ethnologist, 22, 685–704.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zoëga, G., & Murphy, K. A. (2016). Life on the edge of the Arctic: The bioarchaeology of the Keldudalur Cemetery in Skagafjörður, Iceland. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology, 26(4), 574–584.
Zvelebil, M., & Weber, A. W. (2013). Human bioarchaeology: Group identity and individual life histories—Introduction. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 32, 275–279.
Acknowledgments
My sincere thanks to Jane Buikstra for shepherding this volume to completion and for her critical feedback on earlier versions of this chapter. I also thank the two anonymous reviewers who provided comments and suggestions that helped me clarify my thinking on certain aspects of my argument and improved the overall quality of the chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Johnson, K.M. (2019). Opening Up the Family Tree: Promoting More Diverse and Inclusive Studies of Family, Kinship, and Relatedness in Bioarchaeology. In: Buikstra, J.E. (eds) Bioarchaeologists Speak Out. Bioarchaeology and Social Theory. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93012-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93012-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93011-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93012-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)