Application and Hypotheses

Stojanowski and Schillaci’s (2009) first form of analysis is the search for kinship patterns indicated by clustering of discrete genetic traits. The null hypothesis examined herein is that K2 was organized randomly by accretion. The accretionary model assumes that burials in the cemetery commenced at some point in time with an initial burial and then expanded out from that point as additional burials were added without regards to the family affiliation of the individual. The kinship model assumes that various kinship groups first established the tomb superstructures and then proceeded to bury family

members either within or adjacent to the tomb structures over time. The expectation would be that for an accretionary model the distribution of genetic traits would be essentially random, whereas a kinship model should show a tendency towards clustering of the discrete genetic traits. Obviously, these two opposing hypotheses are somewhat simplistic. For example, in the accretionary model a discrete genetic trait could be introduced to the community through exogamy late in the use of the cemetery. Thus, it would be clustered in the later used areas and would be absent from the earlier area of the cemetery. Similarly, kinship is culturally defined and family members could easily be unrelated genetically through process of adoption. These scenarios would confound the patterns in the cemetery, but even with both factors operative, as they probably were, the accretionary pattern should still be significantly different than the kinship mode. Another factor that must be considered is that not all traits may display clustering indicative of kinship. Stojanowski and Schillaci’s (2009: 53) citing Alt and Vach (1998) note that at the within-site level, rare traits or those considered genetically anomalous are more useful than commonly occurring traits for identifying closely related individuals. Thus, while any given trait may or may not show evidence of clustering with kinship implications, it is the sum of the results of the analysis of all the traits that will support or reject the kinship hypothesis.

Finally, as noted, in normal statistical terms, the null hypothesis will be that there is no spatial kinship structure in the cemetery associated with each trait. Therefore, the null hypothesis equates to the accretionary hypothesis and rejection of the null hypothesis would support the alternative or the kinship hypothesis.

The second analysis is called post-marital residence and sex-specific migration

(Stojanowski and Schillaci (2009: 64). These analyses involve examining trait differences and distributions by sex. As noted above I do not believe that we are not studying post- marital residence patterns per se, but are using the burial patterns in the cemetery as a proxy for the residence patterns and/or the kinship system of the society. What we can effectively study is the organization of the cemetery along what were called patrilocal (or matrilocal interment patterns.

Before defining hypotheses as to how various kinship/residence systems would be reflected in the cemetery, it is necessary to look briefly at some previous research on K2. As defined by Stojanowski and Schillaci (2009: 64), post-marital residence and sex- specific analysis focuses primarily on determining which sex in the cemetery has the most variability. The implication is that the members of one sex entered the community from outside through the mechanism of exogamy. Thus, if males show greater genetic variation, then it suggests matrilocality, as the husbands were imported from outside the community. Previous work on K2 has demonstrated that the population of K2 is

genetically part of the population of earlier cemeteries in the Dakhleh Oasis. Brown (2013) used the Smith’s Mean Measure of Divergence to determine whether the earlier cemeteries could be pooled with K2 and concluded that they represent the same

population. Furthermore, Haddow’s (2012: 162) analysis of K2 compared male and female populations using discrete dental traits with the Mean Measure of Divergence, which resulted in a MMD value of .000 or meaning that they are identical genetically. Thus, we are clearly looking at an endogamous pattern for the community where spouses are exchanged between families in the community rather than being imported from more distant, genetically different communities.

With endogamy, then, it appears that using Stojanowski and Schillaci’s (2009) approach, the actual post-marital residence would be difficult or impossible to determine and we are thus forced to look for other potential indicators of post-marital residence or kinship. Bagnall and Frier (1994) have analyzed several hundred Roman historical census records from this time period in Egypt and concluded that the predominant form of post-marital residence at the time was patrilocality. Given post marital patrilocality, the most reasonable expectation of the kinship system would be a patrilineage (Murdock 1949) although determination of kinship from archaeological data can be problematic. Based on this, it seems pragmatic to develop testable hypotheses as to what this might look like if it was reflected in the kinship organization of K2.

If patrilocal residence is reflected in the cemetery organization, we assume that males are buried with their father’s family and that married females are buried with their husband’s

family. Unmarried, separated or potentially widowed females would be buried with their father’s family. In this pattern, we expect that males with a specific discrete trait would cluster together along with some of the females, but other females would be more widely dispersed or possibly evenly distributed through the cemetery.

In matrilocal residence, husbands would be buried with their wife’s kin. Unmarried boys and separated or potentially widowed males would be found with their mother’s family. The morphogenetic indicators of this pattern would result in females clustering and males to be more evenly distributed through the cemetery.

For duolocal residence, a reasonable expectation is that people are buried with their father’s family and, consequently, we would not expect to see one sex clustered and the other more evenly distributed.

Neolocal and bilocal residence patterns could be expected to lead to a cemetery organization that more closely represents the accretionary hypothesis, unless the underlying kinship system is what is reflected in the cemetery organization rather than the residence pattern. The other possible confounding factor would apply to avunculocal residence which would result in a pattern similar to a patrilocal organization. Fortunately, these residence forms are rare (Divale, 1977) and we can reasonably expect a patrilocal residence pattern (Bagnell and Frier, 1994) in the society.

Finally, it must be noted that when examining a specific genetic trait, that the first form of analysis, the search for kinship organization in the cemetery, might not indicate any significant trends but the second form of analysis, the search for post marital residence patterns, could indicate a significant clustering. When this situation occurs, a positive result in the second analysis can be considered as demonstrating a kinship based organization in the cemetery despite the fact that there was no significant clustering during the first step. As will be shown, this situation is common.