Theoretical Orientation

Stojanowski and Schillaci (2009) note that, if the distribution of burials is well defined, then a study of phenotypic variables can be used as a proxy for genotypic variability. They define several different analytic approaches to address this task. Two of these approaches will be utilized herein, first, the search for kinship patterns and second, the examination of post-marital residence patterns.

By identifying areas of family burial, structural statistical analysis of cemeteries seeks to identify patterns that can be used to determine whether cemeteries were organized by kinship patterns including residence or whether the burial practices were accretional and stochastic. For kinship organization, spatially nearby individuals are hypothesized to be more similar genetically than burials further removed spatially. Stojanowski and Schillaci (2009) term this kinship and cemetery structure analysis. As they note, different

analytical approaches are required, depending on the nature of the cemetery. They define analytic procedures for three types of cemeteries, first, small graves with typically under 10 individuals, second, spatially structured cemeteries where there are clearly visible spatially segregated divisions in the cemetery, and third, uniformly distributed cemeteries where there are no obvious spatially distinct divisions in the cemetery. The K2 cemetery (Molto 2002) analysis herein treats K2 as a uniformly distributed cemetery. Note that treating K2 as a spatially structured cemetery analysis is possible as was demonstrated by

Haddow (2012). With uniformly distributed cemetery analysis, the primary focus is the application of methodological procedures and spatial statistics. As Stojanowski and Schillaci (2009) note though, identifying kinship as a factor in cemetery organization is probably the least interesting aspect, since most cemeteries are organized at some level on the basis of kinship. However, once the family units are defined, there are other aspects of social organization that can be investigated.

The second form of Stojanowski and Schillaci’s (2009) analysis is the discernment of post-marital residence patterns by investigating the distribution of phenotypic variables by sex. They note that the most common types of post-marital residence patterns are: 1) patrilocal, where the couple lives in the vicinity of the husband’s parents; 2) matrilocal where residence is with the wife’s parents; 3) avunculocal with the mother’s brother; 4) bilocal residence where there is choice and hence, residence is variable; 5) neolocal which implies that the couple lives separately from either of their parents; and finally, 6) duolocal where the couple lives separate from one another, each continuing to reside after marriage with their own parents (Stojanowski and Schillaci, 2009: 65). Of course, the obvious question is how do residence practices translate into the mortuary program and how does the cemetery organization reflect the mortuary program? Care must be taken in operationalizing these patterns as it relates to the analysis. One problem with identifying post-marital residence patterns from cemetery organization is that of equifinality, where two different residence patterns lead to the same burial juxtapositions in the cemetery. For example, in a hypothetical patrilineage, is patrilocal residence necessarily practiced? If post marital residence is patrilocal, we could expect clustering of closely related males in a cemetery. However, the actual residence patterns could also be bilocal, neolocal and maybe even duolocal but if the mortuary program stressed the patrilineal kinship

organization the burial pattern could see closely related males buried in proximity. Similarly, a matrilineal society with an avunculocal residence pattern could produce a cemetery with clustering of genetically related males that would be only subtly different than a cemetery where burials are organized by patrilineage. Of course, the mortuary program might not even reflect the kinship organization or the post-marital residence pattern of the society. The 17th century Wendat would be a good example there (Trigger 1987). Here a matrilineal society produced ossuaries that are clearly accretional. Another

potential problem would be whether a community was endogamous or exogamous. In the latter, the difference can be tested from analysis of the morphology of the individual skeletons by determining which sex has the most variability.

In general, I challenge Stojanowski and Schillaci’s assertion that the post-marital

residence pattern can generally be determined from the distribution of phenotypes. More likely is that the kinship system, whether patrilineal or matrilineal, would be the

determining factor reflected in the mortuary program, as opposed to the actual post- marital residence pattern, but this is yet another level of abstraction further removed from the archaeological record. To my mind in an analysis of morphogenetic variability the most we can hop to determine is the relatedness of nearby individuals. If this is along male relatedness we could use the term “patrilocal interments”. If we can demonstrate a patrilocal interment pattern this could be used along with other contextual data to make inferences regarding the kinship system and post marital residence pattern. Despite these difficulties, it is still worthwhile to examine the data for potential implications regarding the nature of the burial structure as it relates to the kinship system.

While the structuring of this analysis follows Stojanowski and Schillaci (2009), the mathematical processes utilized are different and thus, represent a departure from the methods they describe. In this paper, as noted, I will test the organization of the K2 cemetery in Dakhleh Oasis, Egypt, a cemetery that is ideal for an intra-cemetery statistical spatial analysis.