DIKUL - logo
E-viri
Recenzirano Odprti dostop
  • Variable kinship patterns i...
    Yaka, Reyhan; Mapelli, Igor; Kaptan, Damla; Doğu, Ayça; Chyleński, Maciej; Erdal, Ömür Dilek; Koptekin, Dilek; Vural, Kıvılcım Başak; Bayliss, Alex; Mazzucato, Camilla; Fer, Evrim; Çokoğlu, Sevim Seda; Lagerholm, Vendela Kempe; Krzewińska, Maja; Karamurat, Cansu; Gemici, Hasan Can; Sevkar, Arda; Dağtaş, Nihan Dilşad; Kılınç, Gülşah Merve; Adams, Donovan; Munters, Arielle R.; Sağlıcan, Ekin; Milella, Marco; Schotsmans, Eline M.J.; Yurtman, Erinç; Çetin, Mehmet; Yorulmaz, Sevgi; Altınışık, N. Ezgi; Ghalichi, Ayshin; Juras, Anna; Bilgin, C. Can; Günther, Torsten; Storå, Jan; Jakobsson, Mattias; de Kleijn, Maurice; Mustafaoğlu, Gökhan; Fairbairn, Andrew; Pearson, Jessica; Togan, İnci; Kayacan, Nurcan; Marciniak, Arkadiusz; Larsen, Clark Spencer; Hodder, Ian; Atakuman, Çiğdem; Pilloud, Marin; Sürer, Elif; Gerritsen, Fokke; Özbal, Rana; Baird, Douglas; Erdal, Yılmaz Selim; Duru, Güneş; Özbaşaran, Mihriban; Haddow, Scott D.; Knüsel, Christopher J.; Götherström, Anders; Özer, Füsun; Somel, Mehmet

    Current biology, 06/2021, Letnik: 31, Številka: 11
    Journal Article

    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.