4.3 Article

The Presence of Nuclear Families in Prehistoric Collective Burials Revisited: The Bronze Age Burial of Montanissell Cave (Spain) in the Light of aDNA

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
Volume 146, Issue 3, Pages 406-413

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ajpa.21590

Keywords

mtDNA; ancient remains; haplogroup J; amelogenin

Funding

  1. Generalitat de Catalunya [SRG 2009-566]
  2. Spanish MCT project [CGL2008-0800]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ancient populations have commonly been thought to have lived in small groups where extreme endogamy was the norm. To contribute to this debate, a genetic analysis has been carried out on a collective burial with eight primary inhumations from Montanissell Cave in the Catalan pre-Pyrenees. Radiocarbon dating clearly placed the burial in the Bronze Age, around 3200 BP. The composition of the group-two adults (one male, one female), one young woman, and five children from both sexes-seemed to represent the structure of a typical nuclear family. The genetic evidence proves this assumption to be wrong. In fact, at least five out of the eight mitochondrial haplotypes were different, denying the possibility of a common maternal ancestor for all of them. Nevertheless, 50% of the inhumations shared haplogroup J, so the possibility of a maternal relationship cannot be ruled out. Actually, combining different analyses performed using ancient and living populations, the probability of having four related J individuals in Montanissell Cave would range from 0.9884 to 0.9999. Owing to the particularities of this singular collective burial (small number of bodies placed altogether in a hidden cave, the evidence of non-simultaneous interments, close dating and unusual grave goods), we suggest that it might represent a small group with a patrilocal mating system. Am J Phys Anthropol 146:406-413, 2011. (C) 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available