English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Report

Variable kinship patterns in Neolithic Anatolia revealed by ancient genomes

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons260929

Ghalichi,  Ayshin
Archaeogenetics, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Max Planck Society;

External Resource

Document S1, Figures S1–S4 and Tables S1–S4
(Supplementary material)

Supplemental Data
(Supplementary material)

Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

shh2922.pdf
(Publisher version), 3MB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Yaka, R., Mapelli, I., Kaptan, D., Doğu, A., Chyleński, M., Erdal, Ö. D., et al.(2021). Variable kinship patterns in Neolithic Anatolia revealed by ancient genomes (shh2922). doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.050.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/21.11116/0000-0008-83DC-C
Abstract
The social organization of the first fully sedentary societies that emerged during the Neolithic period in Southwest Asia remains enigmatic,1 mainly because material culture studies provide limited insight into this issue. However, because Neolithic Anatolian communities often buried their dead beneath domestic buildings,2 household composition and social structure can be studied through these human remains. Here, we describe genetic relatedness among co-burials associated with domestic buildings in Neolithic Anatolia using 59 ancient genomes, including 22 new genomes from A??kl? Höyük and Çatalhöyük. We infer pedigree relationships by simultaneously analyzing multiple types of information, including autosomal and X chromosome kinship coefficients, maternal markers, and radiocarbon dating. In two early Neolithic villages dating to the 9th and 8th millennia BCE, A??kl? Höyük and Boncuklu, we discover that siblings and parent-offspring pairings were frequent within domestic structures, which provides the first direct indication of close genetic relationships among co-burials. In contrast, in the 7th millennium BCE sites of Çatalhöyük and Barc?n, where we study subadults interred within and around houses, we find close genetic relatives to be rare. Hence, genetic relatedness may not have played a major role in the choice of burial location at these latter two sites, at least for subadults. This supports the hypothesis that in Çatalhöyük,3?5 and possibly in some other Neolithic communities, domestic structures may have served as burial location for social units incorporating biologically unrelated individuals. Our results underscore the diversity of kin structures in Neolithic communities during this important phase of sociocultural development.