Kinship is a most significant organizing principle of human grouping, the basic matter of social categories in archaeological and ethnographic societies, and an important concept universally. However, its significance has rarely been adequately incorporated within archaeology’s theoretical and interpretative practice. This article aims to not only show the potential of bringing kinship into social archaeology, but also argue that archaeology can make important contributions to wider social research. Grounded on prehistoric data, spanning from the 8th to the 4th millennium bc, and drawing on cross-cultural discussions, it explores how understandings and practices of kinship might have been constructed and enacted in the first farming communities through architecture, time, material products, burials, and rituals. In doing so, the article addresses key issues of common interest in archaeology and anthropology, inviting interdisciplinary dialogue.
AndersonM.BechhoferF.GershunyJ. (Eds.). (1994). The social and political economy of the household. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2.
BlochM. (1971). Placing the dead: Tombs, ancestral villages and kinship organisation in Madagascar. London, England: Seminar Press.
3.
BlochM. (1973). The long term and the short term: The economic and political significance of the morality of kinship. In GoodyJ. (Ed.), The character of kinship (pp. 75-87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BourdieuP. (1996). On the family as a realised category. Theory, Culture & Society, 13, 19-26.
5.
BozB.HagerL. D. (2013). Living above the dead: Intramural burial practices at Çatalhöyük. In HodderI. (Ed.), Humans and landscapes in Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 seasons. British Institute at Ankara Monograph 47 and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA Press Monumenta Archaeologica 30 (pp. 413-440). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
6.
CarrC. (1995). Mortuary practices: Their social, philosophical-religious, circumstantial, and physical determinants. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 2, 105-200.
7.
CarstenJ. (1995). The substance of kinship and heat of the hearth: Feeding, personhood, and relatedness among Malays of Pulau Langkawi. American Ethnologist, 22, 223-241.
8.
ChangK.-C. (1958). Study of the Neolithic social grouping: Examples from the New World. American Anthropologist, 60, 298-334.
9.
ChealD. (1989). Strategies of resource management in household economies: Moral economy or political economy? In WilkR. (Ed.), The household economy: Reconsidering the domestic mode of production (pp. 11-22). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
10.
DarcqueP.Koukouli-ChryssanthakiCh.MalamidouD.TreuilR.TsirtsoniZ. (2007). Recent researches at the Neolithic settlement of Dikili Tash, Eastern Macedonia, Greece: An overview. In TodorovaH.StefanovichM.IvanovG. (Eds.), The Struma / Strymon River Valley in prehistory (pp. 247-256). Sofia, Bulgaria: Gerda Henkel Stiftung.
11.
DarcqueP.TsirtsoniZ. (2010). Evidence from Dikili Tash (eastern Macedonia, Greece) and the tell issue. In HansenS. (Ed.), Leben auf dem Tell als soziale Praxis, Beiträge des internationalen symposiums in Berlin vom 26.-27. Februar 2007 (Kolloquien zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte 14, pp. 55-69). Bonn, Germany: Rudolf Habelt.
12.
DüringB. S. (2011). The prehistory of Asia Minor: From complex hunter-gatherers to early urban societies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
13.
EfstratiouN.FumanalM. P.FerrerC.Urem-KotsouD.CurciA.TagliacozzoA.SkourtopoulouK. (1998). Excavations at the Neolithic settlement of Makri. Thrace, Greece (1988-1996). A preliminary report. Saguntum (Plav), 31, 11-62.
14.
EmberM. (1973). An archaeological indicator of matrilocal versus patrilocal residence. American Antiquity, 38, 177-182.
15.
EmberM.EmberC. R. (1995). Cross-cultural studies and their relevance for archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 3, 87-111.
16.
EnsorB. E. (2011). Kinship theory in archaeology: From critiques to the study of social transformations. American Antiquity, 76, 203-227.
17.
EnsorB. E. (2013). The archaeology of kinship: Advancing interpretations and contributions to theory. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
18.
EnsorB. E. (in press). Testing Ethnological Theories on Prehistoric Kinship. Cross-Cultural Research.
19.
FolbreN. (1987). Family strategy, feminist strategy. Historical Methods, 20, 115-118.
20.
FoxR. (1967). Kinship and marriage: An anthropological perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
21.
GambleC. (2008). Kinship and material culture: Archaeological implications of the global human diaspora. In AllenN. J.CallanH.DunbarR.JamesW. (Eds.), Early human kinship: From sex to social reproduction (pp. 27-40). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
22.
GillespieS. D. (2000). Rethinking ancient Maya social organization: Replacing “lineage” with “house.”American Anthropologist, 102, 467-484.
23.
González-RuibalA. (2006). House societies vs. kinship-based societies: An archaeological case from Iron Age Europe. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 25, 144-173.
24.
GoughK. (1961). Descent groups of settled and mobile cultivators. In SchneiderD. M.GoughK. (Eds.), Matrilineal kinship (pp. 450-456). Berkeley: University of California Press.
25.
HadjiA.SouvatziS. (2014). Space and time in Mediterranean prehistory and beyond. In SouvatziS.HadjiA. (Eds.), Space and time in Mediterranean prehistory (pp. 1-31). New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
HalsteadP. (2012). Feast, food and fodder in Neolithic-Bronze Age Greece: Commensality and the construction of value. In PollockS. (Ed.), Between feasts and daily meals. Toward an archaeology of commensal spaces. eTopoi: Journal for Ancient Studies, special volume, 2, pp. 21-51).
27.
HanH. (2004). Kinship, gender and mode of production in post-Mao China: Variations in two northern villages. In ParkinR.StoneL. (Eds.), Kinship and family: An anthropological reader (pp. 408-423). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
28.
HannC. (2001). From Volksgeist to radical humanism: Culture and value in economic anthropology. Reviews in Anthropology, 30, 1-30.
29.
HartG. (1992). Imagined unities: Constructions of the “household” in economic theory. In OrtizS.LeesS. (Eds.), Understanding economic process (Monographs in Economic Anthropology 10, pp. 111-129). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
30.
HartmannH. (1981). The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 6, 366-394.
31.
HendonJ. A. (2010). Houses in a landscape: Memory and everyday life in Mesoamerica. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
32.
HodderI. (2013). Introduction: Dwelling at Çatalhöyük. In HodderI. (Ed.), Humans and landscapes in Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 Seasons. British Institute at Ankara Monograph 47 and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA Press Monumenta Archaeologica 30 (pp. 1-29). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
33.
HodderI.PelsP. (2010). History houses: A new interpretation of architectural elaboration at Çatalhöyük. In HodderI. (Ed.), Religion in the emergence of civilisation: Çatalhöyük as a case study (pp. 163-186). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HutchinsonS. E. (2000). Identity and substance: The broadening bases of relatedness among the Nuer of Southern Sudan. In CarstenJ. (Ed.), Cultures of relatedness. New approaches to the study of kinship (pp. 55-72). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
JohnsonM.PerlèsC. (2004). An overview of Neolithic settlement patterns in Eastern Thessaly. In CherryJ.ScarreC.ShennanS. (Eds.), Explaining social change: Studies in honour of Colin Renfrew (pp. 65-79). Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
36.
JoyceR. A.GillespieS. D. (Eds.). (2000). Beyond kinship: Social and material reproduction in house societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
37.
KarulN.AvcıM. (2013). Aktopraklık. In OzdoganM.BasgelenN.KuniholmP. (Eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul (pp. 45-68). Istanbul, Turkey: Archaeology and Art Publications.
38.
KeeganW. F. (2009). Central plaza burials in Saladoid Puerto Rico: An alternative perspective. Latin American Antiquity, 20, 375-385.
39.
KnightC. (2008). Early human kinship was matrilineal. In AllenN. J.CallanH.DunbarR.JamesW. (Eds.), Early human kinship: From sex to social reproduction (pp. 61-82). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
40.
Koukouli-ChryssanthakiC.TodorovaH.AslanisI.VaisovI.VallaM. (2007). Promachon-Topolniča: A Greek-Bulgarian archaeological project. In TodorovaH.StefanovichM.IvanovG. (Eds.), The Struma / Strymon River Valley in prehistory (pp. 43-78). Sofia, Bulgaria: Gerda Henkel Stiftung.
41.
LevinI. (1993). Family as mapped realities. Journal of Family Issues, 14, 82-91.
42.
Lévi-StraussC. (1983). The way of the masks. London, England: Jonathan Cape.
43.
Lévi-StraussC. (1987). Anthropology and myth: Lectures 1951-1982. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
44.
MaderE.GippelhauserR. (2000). Power and kinship in Shuar and Achuar society. In SchweitzerP. P. (Ed.), Dividends of kinship: Meanings and uses of social relatedness (pp. 61-91). London, England: Routledge.
45.
McAnanyP. A. (1995). Living with the ancestors: Kinship and kingship in ancient Maya society. Austin: University of Texas Press.
46.
MeansB. K. (2007). Circular villages of the Monongahela tradition. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama press.
47.
MorganD. H. J. (1996). Family connections: An introduction to family studies. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
48.
MurdockG. (1949). Our primitive contemporaries. New York, NY: Macmillan.
49.
MurdockG. (1967). Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
50.
NakamuraC.MeskellL. (2013). The Çatalhöyük burial assemblage. In HodderI. (Ed.), Humans and landscapes in Çatalhöyük: Reports from the 2000-2008 seasons. British Institute at Ankara Monograph 47 and Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at UCLA Press Monumenta Archaeologica 30 (pp. 441-466). Los Angeles, CA: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Press.
51.
NettingR. McC.WilkR. R.ArnouldE. J. (1984). Introduction. In NettingR. McC.WilkR. R.ArnouldE. J. (Eds.), Households: Comparative and historical studies of the domestic group (pp. xiii-xxxviii). Berkeley: University of California Press.
52.
NuttallM. (2000). Choosing kin: Sharing and subsistence in a Greenlandic hunting community. In SchweitzerP. P. (Ed.), Dividends of kinship: Meanings and uses of social relatedness (pp. 33-60). London, England: Routledge.
53.
ÖzbaşaranM. (2011). The Neolithic on the plateau. In SteadmanS. R.McMahonG. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of ancient Anatolia (pp. 99-124). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
54.
PappaM. (2007). Neolithic societies: Recent evidence from northern Greece. In TodorovaH.StefanovichM.IvanovG. (Eds.), The Struma / Strymon River Valley in prehistory (pp. 257-272). Sofia, Bulgaria: Gerda Henkel Stiftung.
55.
PeregrineP. N. (2001a). Cross-cultural comparative approaches in archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 1-18.
56.
PeregrineP. N. (2001b). Matrilocality, corporate strategy, and the organisation of production in the Chacoan world. American Antiquity, 66, 36-46.
57.
PerlèsC.VitelliK. D. (1999). Craft specialisation in the Greek Neolithic. In HalsteadP. (Ed.), Neolithic society in Greece (Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology 2, pp. 96-107). Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press.
58.
PollockS. (Ed.). (2012). Between feasts and daily meals. Toward an archaeology of commensal spaces. eTopoi: Journal for Ancient Studies, Special Volume 2.
59.
RobertsP. (1991). Anthropological perspectives on the household. Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, 22, 60-64.
60.
RoodenbergJ.RoodenbergA. (2013). Ilipinar and Menteşe: Early farming communities in the Eastern Marmara. In OzdoganM.BasgelenN.KuniholmP. (Eds.), The Neolithic in Turkey: Northwestern Turkey and Istanbul (pp. 69-91). Istanbul, Turkey: Archaeology & Art Publications.
61.
SchweizerT.WhiteD. R. (Eds.). (1998). Kinship, networks and exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
62.
SegalenM. (1986). Historical anthropology of the family. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63.
SkourtopoulouK. (2006). Questioning spatial contexts: The contribution of lithic studies as analytical and interpretative bodies of data. In PapaconstantinouD. (Ed.), Deconstructing context. A critical approach to archaeological practice (pp. 50-78). Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books.
64.
SouvatziS. (2007a). The identification of Neolithic households: Unfeasible or just disregarded? In WestgateR. C.WhitleyJ.FisherN. R. E. (Eds.), Building communities: House, settlement and society in the Aegean and beyond (Studies 15, pp. 19-28). London, England: British School at Athens.
65.
SouvatziS. (2007b). Social complexity is not the same as hierarchy. In KohringS. E.Wynne-JonesS. (Eds.), Socialising complexity: Approaches to power and interaction in the archaeological record (pp. 37-59). Oxford, UK: Oxbow.
66.
SouvatziS. (2008a). Household dynamics and variability in the Neolithic of Greece: The case for a bottom-up approach. In BaileyD. W.WhittleA.HofmannD. (Eds.), Living well together: Settlement and materiality in the Neolithic of Central and Southeastern Europe (pp. 17-27). Oxford, UK: Oxbow.
67.
SouvatziS. (2008b). A social archaeology of households in Neolithic Greece. An anthropological approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
68.
SouvatziS. (2012). Between the individual and the collective: Household as a social process in Neolithic Greece. In ParkerB. J.FosterC. P. (Eds.), Household archaeology: New perspectives from the Near East and beyond (pp. 15-43). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
69.
SouvatziS. (2013a). Diversity, homogeneity and the transformative properties of the house in Neolithic Greece. In HofmannD.SmythJ. (Eds.), Tracking the Neolithic house in Europe: Sedentism, architecture and practice (pp. 45-64). New York, NY: Springer.
70.
SouvatziS. (2013b). Land tenure, social relations and social landscapes. In RelakiM.CatapotiD. (Eds.), An archaeology of land ownership (pp. 21-45). London, England: Routledge.
71.
TheocharisD. R. (1973). Neolithic Greece. Athens: National Bank of Greece.
72.
ToufexisG. (2005). Anatoliki parakampsi Larissas, neolithiki thesi sto koinotiko diamerisma tis Galenes, Dimos Platykambou [Eastern deviation of Larissa, neolithic site at the county of Galene, Municipality of Platykambos]. Archaiologiko Deltio, 54, 424-426.
73.
ToufexisG. (2016). Palioskala: A Late Neolithic, Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age settlement in the eastern Thessalian plain (Central Greece). In TsirtsoniZ. (Ed.), The human face of radiocarbon: Reassessing chronology in Prehistoric Greece and Bulgaria, 5000-3000 cal BC (pp. 361-380). Lyon, France: Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée.
74.
TrautmannT. R.Feeley-HarnikG.MitaniJ. C. (2011). Deep kinship. In ShryockA.Lord SmailD. (Eds.), Deep history: The architecture of past and present (pp. 160-188). Berkeley: University of California Press.
75.
TriantaphyllouS. (2008). Living with the dead: A re-consideration of mortuary practices in the Greek Neolithic. In IsaakidouV.TomkinsP. (Eds.), Escaping the labyrinth: The Cretan Neolithic in context (pp. 139-157). Oxford, UK: Oxbow.
76.
WhiteD. R.SchweizerT. (1998). Kinship, property transmission and stratification in Javanese villages. In SchweizerT.WhiteD. R. (Eds.), Kinship, networks and exchange (pp. 36-58). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
77.
WilkR. R. (1983). Little house in the jungle: The causes of variation in house size among modern Kekchi Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 2, 99-116.
78.
WilkR. R. (1991). The household in anthropology: Panacea or problem?Reviews in Anthropology, 20, 1-12.
79.
WilkR. R. (1993). Altruism and self-interest: Towards an anthropological theory of decision making. Research in Economic Anthropology, 14, 191-212.
80.
YaegerJ.CanutoM. A. (2000). Introducing an archaeology of communities. In CanutoM. A.YaegerJ. (Eds.), The archaeology of communities. A new world perspective (pp. 1-15). London, England: Routledge.
