Biological Kinship, Postmarital Residence and the Emergence of Cemetery Formalisation at Prehistoric Marathon

Abstract

This paper examines the role of kinship and postmarital residence in the emergence of organised cemeteries during the transition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age at Marathon, Attica. Focusing on the cemetery of Tsepi, we performed intra-cemetery biodistance analysis to test whether biological relatedness structured spatial organisation of tombs, and whether postmarital residence was matrilocal or patrilocal. Dental metric, dental morphological and cranial non-metric data were collected from 293 individuals and subjected to multivariate analysis (principal component analysis, Euclidean distance ordination via multidimensional scaling), binomial probability calculations, Ripley's K analysis and determinant ratio analysis. Results indicated phenotypic similarity among some tomb co-interments; however, outliers suggested that within-tomb burial depended on a variety of factors that could include affinal, fictive or practical kinship. There was strong evidence for phenotypic patterning by tomb row, indicating that cemetery structure at Tsepi was organised according to biological lineages. This was especially evident for females. Male phenotypic variation was higher than that of females, though not significantly so. The results of intra-cemetery biodistance analysis at Tsepi reveal a complex mortuary programme that emphasised biological kinship within an exogamous and likely matrilocal system of mate exchange. When considered in light of ethnographic evidence, the practice of male exogamy may correlate with the coastal location of the community and the maritime activities that structured the economy during the emergence of social complexity in the region. This paper illustrates the potential of biodistance analyses for elucidating aspects of social life in the Aegean.

Ancient DNA reveals admixture history and endogamy in the prehistoric Aegean

“…Interestingly, eastern gene flow is also evident in other parts of Greece (Euboea, Aegina and Cyclades) since the LN but seems more episodic and oriented to populations from the Caucasus. In addition, although Y haplogroups are unresolved, male exogamy should be discussed as a plausible contributing factor to the heterogenous genetic profiles among the male individuals from Nea Styra, in line with evidence from biodistance on a neighbouring site 35 . Overall, while a more even sampling would be critical, current data seem to support that the eastern gene flow was not symmetric across the Aegean.…”

“…Recent archaeogenetic studies outside the Aegean have engaged into integrating biological information as elements of the past social organization and structures [30][31][32][33] , whereby it is necessary to acknowledge that relational identities are not determined only through biological kinship 34 . Most approaches to past kinship in the Aegean were based on morphometric and non-metric analyses 17,19,35 and first PCR-based studies were unsuccessful 36 . However, the potential of this line of evidence from the Aegean BA is outstanding due to the richness of collective burials as an expression and constitution of social belonging within local communities 37 .…”

The rise of coastal Middle Bronze Age Levant – A multidisciplinary approach for investigating in Sidon, Lebanon

“…Dental nonmetric traits were used as a proxy for genetic data; these hereditary features, visible on tooth cusps and roots, have been found to recreate population distances that are similar to DNA studies (Delgado et al, 2019; Hubbard et al, 2015; Rathmann & Reyes‐Centeno, 2020). Dental non‐metric traits have been used in various biodistance investigations, ranging from global (Hanihara, 2008; Scott & Dahlberg, 1982; Scott & Turner, 1997; Stojanowski & Schillaci, 2006) and regional (Coppa et al, 2007; Irish, 2005, 2006; Irish & Friedman, 2010; Parras, 2004; Ullinger et al, 2005) to intra‐site comparisons (Adams et al, 2020; Elias, 2016; Maaranen et al, 2021; Paul et al, 2013; Pilloud & Larsen, 2011; Prevedorou & Stojanowski, 2017; Rathmann et al, 2019; Stantis, Maaranen, Kharobi, Nowell, Macpherson, Schutkowski, & Bourke, 2021; Stojanowski, 2003; Stojanowski & Schillaci, 2006). In comparison, intra‐site (i.e., intra‐cemetery) analyses are not as common though they have much potential by providing insight into cemetery structures, post‐marital residency, biological kinship, temporal microchronology and phenotypic variability (Stojanowski & Schillaci, 2006).…”

Missing data in bioarchaeology II: A test of ordinal and continuous data imputation

“…Compared to other subtopics within biological anthropology, bioarchaeologists have made far less use of statistically sophisticated methods for handling missing data and are more likely to rely on deletion methods (see companion article). The areas in which imputation has been used extensively include biodistance analyses and broader investigations of population affinity (Godde & Rangel González, 2022 ; Paul et al, 2013 ; Prevedorou & Stojanowski, 2017 ; Rathmann et al, 2022 ). Noting the limitations of missing data early on, Howells ( 1973 ) proposed three options for handling missing biodistance data: mean imputation, regression, and making an educated guess.…”