% pubman genre = article
@article{item_3325894,
title = {{Variable kinship patterns in Neolithic Anatolia revealed by ancient genomes}},
author = {Yaka, Reyhan and Mapelli, Igor and Kaptan, Damla and Do{\u{g}}u, Ay{\c{c}}a and Chyle{\'n}ski, Maciej and Erdal, {\"O}m{\"u}r Dilek and Koptekin, Dilek and Vural, K{\i}v{\i}lc{\i}m Ba{\c{s}}ak and Bayliss, Alex and Mazzucato, Camilla and Fer, Evrim and {\c{C}}oko{\u{g}}lu, Sevim Seda and Lagerholm, Vendela Kempe and Krzewi{\'n}ska, Maja and Karamurat, Cansu and Gemici, Hasan Can and Sevkar, Arda and Da{\u{g}}ta{\c{s}}, Nihan Dil{\c{s}}ad and K{\i}l{\i}n{\c{c}}, G{\"u}l{\c{s}}ah Merve and Adams, Donovan and Munters, Arielle R. and Sa{\u{g}}l{\i}can, Ekin and Milella, Marco and Schotsmans, Eline M.J. and Yurtman, Erin{\c{c}} and {\c{C}}etin, Mehmet and Yorulmaz, Sevgi and Alt{\i}n{\i}{\c{s}}{\i}k, N. Ezgi and Ghalichi, Ayshin and Juras, Anna and Bilgin, C. Can and G{\"u}nther, Torsten and Stor{\aa}, Jan and Jakobsson, Mattias and de Kleijn, Maurice and Mustafao{\u{g}}lu, G{\"o}khan and Fairbairn, Andrew and Pearson, Jessica and Togan, {\.I}nci and Kayacan, Nurcan and Marciniak, Arkadiusz and Larsen, Clark Spencer and Hodder, Ian and Atakuman, {\c{C}}i{\u{g}}dem and Pilloud, Marin and S{\"u}rer, Elif and Gerritsen, Fokke and {\"O}zbal, Rana and Baird, Douglas and Erdal, Y{\i}lmaz Selim and Duru, G{\"u}ne{\c{s}} and {\"O}zba{\c{s}}aran, Mihriban and Haddow, Scott D. and Kn{\"u}sel, Christopher J. and G{\"o}therstr{\"o}m, Anders and {\"O}zer, F{\"u}sun and Somel, Mehmet},
language = {eng},
issn = {0960-9822},
doi = {10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.050},
publisher = {Cell Press},
address = {London, UK},
year = {2021},
date = {2021-06-07},
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? H{\"o}y{\"u}k and {\c{C}}atalh{\"o}y{\"u}k. 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? H{\"o}y{\"u}k 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 {\c{C}}atalh{\"o}y{\"u}k 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 {\c{C}}atalh{\"o}y{\"u}k,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.}},
contents = {Results and discussion - Increased genetic diversity from the Aceramic to the Ceramic period - Estimating pedigree relationships among Neolithic co-burials - Co-buried pairs in Aceramic period sites frequently include relatives - Relatives are rare among Catalhoyuk and Barc{\i}n intramural burials - Temporal or age-dependent variability in co-burial kinship patterns - Varying traditions linking sex and space STAR+Methods},
journal = {{Current Biology}},
volume = {31},
number = {11},
pages = {2455--2468.e18},
}