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 Aşıklı 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, Aşıklı 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 Barcın, 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.
•Genetic kinship estimated from co-buried individuals’ genomes in Neolithic Anatolia•Close relatives are common among co-burials in Aşıklı and Boncuklu•Many unrelated infants found buried in the same building in Çatalhöyük and Barcın•Neolithic societies in Southwest Asia may have held diverse concepts of kinship
Yaka et al. use ancient genomes from Neolithic Anatolia and present evidence for diverse concepts of social kinship in Neolithic societies. In some communities, like Çatalhöyük, many genetically unrelated infants were buried together inside the same buildings, whereas in other sites, people buried together were frequently close biological kin.
There is growing interest in uncovering genetic kinship patterns in past societies using low‐coverage palaeogenomes. Here, we benchmark four tools for kinship estimation with such data: lcMLkin, ...NgsRelate, KIN, and READ, which differ in their input, IBD estimation methods, and statistical approaches. We used pedigree and ancient genome sequence simulations to evaluate these tools when only a limited number (1 to 50 K, with minor allele frequency ≥0.01) of shared SNPs are available. The performance of all four tools was comparable using ≥20 K SNPs. We found that first‐degree related pairs can be accurately classified even with 1 K SNPs, with 85% F1 scores using READ and 96% using NgsRelate or lcMLkin. Distinguishing third‐degree relatives from unrelated pairs or second‐degree relatives was also possible with high accuracy (F1 > 90%) with 5 K SNPs using NgsRelate and lcMLkin, while READ and KIN showed lower success (69 and 79% respectively). Meanwhile, noise in population allele frequencies and inbreeding (first‐cousin mating) led to deviations in kinship coefficients, with different sensitivities across tools. We conclude that using multiple tools in parallel might be an effective approach to achieve robust estimates on ultra‐low‐coverage genomes.
Upper Mesopotamia played a key role in the Neolithic Transition in Southwest Asia through marked innovations in symbolism, technology, and diet. We present 13 ancient genomes (c. 8500 to 7500 cal ...BCE) from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Çayönü in the Tigris basin together with bioarchaeological and material culture data. Our findings reveal that Çayönü was a genetically diverse population, carrying mixed ancestry from western and eastern Fertile Crescent, and that the community received immigrants. Our results further suggest that the community was organized along biological family lines. We document bodily interventions such as head shaping and cauterization among the individuals examined, reflecting Çayönü’s cultural ingenuity. Last, we identify Upper Mesopotamia as the likely source of eastern gene flow into Neolithic Anatolia, in line with material culture evidence. We hypothesize that Upper Mesopotamia’s cultural dynamism during the Neolithic Transition was the product not only of its fertile lands but also of its interregional demographic connections.
Neolithic Upper Mesopotamia was a center of cultural innovation; ancient genomes now reveal that it was also a migration hub.
PDF
