The Archaeology of Kinship: Advancing Interpretation and Contributions to Theory

8. Archaeological Analysis of Descent Group Organization

141 CHAPTer eIGHT Archaeological Analysis of descent Group organization This chapter describes the middle-range approaches by which archaeologists can identify descent groups, or bilateral descent, which are applied to the case study in Chapter 9. The chapter begins with a discussion on the relationships between residential groups and descent groups and solutions that can guide archaeological interpretation of descent groups. The second section describes cross-cultural patterns in local groups and their relationship to descent group organization, in addition to some of the social implications these have on regional interaction. This is nothing less than a kinship-based explanation for settlement patterns and intrasite spatial organization. The third and fourth sections describe the “middle-range” indications of descent groups and bilateral kinship. The chapter also explains how archaeologists can distinguish neolocality, uxorilocality , virilocality, and avunculocality. The final section is devoted to cemetery organization and identity. Before proceeding, some observations on the limitations of alternative methods should be discussed. for the same reasons described in Chapter 5, archaeologists should limit the use of direct historical analogy to creating hypotheses on descent groups. Inferences from kinship terminology should similarly be limited to hypotheses, but never interpretations. Historical archaeologists should also use caution about these approaches because there may be more variability within the periods from which the samples of historical data were derived, and later ethnographies may describe social organization altered by colonialism and expanding capitalism . Associations with subsistence strategies were not strongly supported 142 chapter eight by cross-cultural tests. These considerations lead us to the need for independent sources of information on descent groups. otherwise, archaeologists are merely engaging in ethnotyranny (wobst 1978; Maclachlan and Keegan 1990). when considering that most hypotheses on the development of descent groups are diachronic in nature but have never been tested with diachronic data, their use for interpretation merely exacerbates the deficiencies in the hypotheses. so we need independent means for identifying descent groups. Although there is potential for physical anthropology to develop the means by which to independently identify descent group organization, that subfield needs time to produce better models on the influence of social organization and marriage systems on genetic distance within and among cemetery populations. As was the case with postmarital residence, the problems with the current alternatives lead to other means by which archaeologists can identify descent group organization. Just as we needed middle-range theory on the ways that residential groups structure households, we also need middle-range theory linking descent groups to the spatial distributions of households. The methods are best understood if we begin discussion on the relationships between postmarital residence and descent. This is not to claim that descent or descent groups can be interpreted from postmarital residence but, rather, that relationships help to pinpoint the kinds of archaeological data needed for interpretation. Postmarital Residence and Descent In much of the last century, it was generally believed that postmarital residence could be predicted from ideologies of descent (the ideational assumption that behavior follows ideology). Patrilineal descent was believed to result in patrilocality. Matrilineal descent was believed to result in matrilocality. Bilateral descent was believed to result in bilocality. However , these hypotheses were not well supported by cross-cultural tests. I use Pasternak’s (1976:44–46) analysis of 843 cultures as an illustration of the general patterns found in such surveys. The Ethnographic Atlas coded entries were based on normative ethnographic descriptions, sometimes backed by empirical evidence. They are problematic in that they are based on synchronic normative generalizations, where variability might exist, and on cultures potentially undergoing change. nevertheless, these are useful for making some points. He found that 96 percent of the societies with patrilineal descent also emphasized patrilocality. But among the societies with matrilineal descent, 36 percent were matrilocal and 30 percent were avunculocal. some combined matrilineal descent with bilocality . fewer combined matrilineal descent with patrilocality, neolocality, Archaeological Analysis of Descent Group Organization 143 or duolocality. Among the cultures with nonunilineal descent (ambilineal or bilateral), 52 percent were patrilocal, 22 percent were matrilocal, 17 percent were bilocal, and 9 percent were neolocal. These data indicate a strong association between patrilineal descent and patrilocality, but no other forms of postmarital residence can be associated with matrilineal or cognatic descent. After the middle part of the last century, the hypothesis that residence follows from descent was reversed. Anthropology in general became more materialistic, and ideologies were viewed as products of social relations...