The evolutionary past of matrilineal kinship

In the following paragraphs I suggest that the original ‘throning’ of matrilineal kinship in Aegean prehistory resulted from evolutionary ideology in archaeology, which was introduced through anthropology, and not from archaeologists’ naïveté towards anthropological terms.

In archaeology, the hypothesis for prehistoric matrilineal kinship is closely connected to evolutionary theory and gender relationships have been regarded as indicators for kinship systems. The perceived shift from women’s to men’s leading role, therefore, has been corresponded to successive stages of social development, a trend that can be traced to early evolutionary models (Mina Reference Mina, Cappel, Günkel-Maschek and Panagiotopoulos2015, 181–2). For example, McLennan in Primitive Marriage (Reference McLennan1865) linked the shift from matriliny to patriliny to the eventual emergence of states (Fedigan Reference Fedigan1986, 28), whereas Morgan in Ancient Society (Reference Morgan1877) and Engels in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (Reference Engels and West1884) placed matriliny at a less advanced stage than patriliny (Kuper Reference Kuper1988, 60). The replacement of matriliny with patriliny was considered in 19th century models as a pre-requisite for the emergence of the state, the culmination of complex and civilized society (Kuper Reference Kuper1988, 71).

The link between evolutionary theory and the attribution of matrilineal forms of kinship to earlier, and thus primitive, stages of social organization betray the heavy influence of androcentric views (Mina Reference Mina, Cappel, Günkel-Maschek and Panagiotopoulos2015, 182). The survival of evolutionary approaches in archaeology is also demonstrated by the association of more technologically advanced stages of human history with the transition to patrilineal descent and patriarchy. Ironically, the association of women with simpler forms of past social organization derived from ethnographic studies, since archaeologists found it difficult to detect such patterns in the archaeological record (Nelson Reference Nelson1997, 319). Ethnographers’ observations, however, are no longer treated as objective data, and it is now widely accepted that societies under study had for a long time constituted part of the same economic system that continues to oppress women (Leacock Reference Leacock1978, 247; Wotela and Moultire Reference Wotela and Moultrie2008, 9–10).

Support in favour of matrilineal kinship in Neolithic societies, which was violently replaced by patriarchy, has also been offered by proponents of the Mother-Goddess theory (e.g., Gimbutas Reference Gimbutas1991, 352, 365). Although such models aimed at reinstating women in human history, nevertheless, they helped bolster evolutionary approaches to past societies. Archaeologists’ reactions on epistemological merits to Gimbutas’ Mother-Goddess theory subsequently questioned the matriliny hypothesis in past societies. Although the author describes the phenomenon as ‘dethroning’ matrilineal kinship in Aegean prehistory, I would argue that it does not demonstrate a polemical attitude on the part of archaeologists to annihilate matrilineal kinship per se. The critique of Gimbutas’ work coincides largely with the post-processual era and the development of gender archaeology which helped expose the influence of gender and evolutionary biases on archaeological narratives.

Rather than attributing the different attitudes towards matrilineal kinship to processes of ‘dethroning’ and ‘re-throning’, I would view them respectively as reflecting predominantly the influence of evolutionary perspectives and the challenge of past interpretations through an analytical and self-critical lens. I do not share the author’s view, therefore, that archaeologists’ limited understanding of anthropological terms or ethnographic parallels is responsible for the varied attitudes towards matriliny.

Les liaisons dangereuses

The author suggests that archaeologists’ familiarization with the terms kinship, gender, and descent as defined in socio-cultural anthropology can prevent the reiteration of erroneous interpretations. Can anthropology and ethnography rehabilitate archaeology, given their shared origins in the colonial past? To what extent can we use ethnographic analogies in archaeological research? As I argue in the following paragraphs, unless we recognize the inherent biases in socio-cultural anthropology and ethnography, they can in fact fuel ethnocentric interpretations of kinship in past societies.

Critical discourse surrounding anthropology in recent years has exposed that at the core of the discipline lies the study of the inferior Other by western observers, itself a construct of European-colonial discourse (McNiven and Russell Reference McNiven and Russell2005, 3 with references). Moreover, the labelling of indigenous societies in ethnographic parallels as ancient has helped to legitimize colonial settlement of native lands (McNiven and Russell Reference McNiven and Russell2005, 4 with references). In a postcolonial era, therefore, ‘colonial discourse’ takes the form of knowledge about non-Western cultures which is generated and controlled by Western power as a way of legitimizing colonial control (Moro-Abadía Reference Moro-Abadía2006, 6–7). Critical discussion concerning the use of ethnographic analogies in archaeology has also challenged on epistemological and moral grounds the practice of using the present of one society to interpret the past of another which is geographically and culturally remote. Other criticisms have challenged the objectivity of ethnographic reports, which occasionally were produced by dubious narrators and are coloured by ethnocentric biases (Gosden Reference Gosden1999, 9). The hypotheses, therefore, that rely on ethnographic data often serve to corroborate ethnographers’ remarks (Currie Reference Currie2016, 90).

Evolutionism (inextricably linked to colonialism) has also left its stigma on anthropology. Colonial ethnography and evolutionary theory converged as Western societies saw themselves as the product of a historical process, whereas exotic people were viewed as relics of earlier stages, an idea that was readily adopted by archaeologists in the early twentieth century (Gossellain Reference Gosselain2016, 218). With the growth of ethnoarchaeology, archaeologists continue to seek appropriate contexts for testing hypotheses about prehistoric behaviour and, among others, the hunter-gatherers have been treated as Stone Age fossils, regardless of the conditions under which they lived (Gossellain Reference Gosselain2016, 219). Ethnoarchaeology, therefore, has been criticized for its evolutionary and racist ideology which equates indigenous societies to ancient societies that constitute the subject of archaeological inquiry (Cunningham and McGeough Reference Cunningham and McGeough2018, 162).

Ethnocentrism is another recognized limitation of anthropology as it is taken for granted that certain norms and institutions of western culture constitute universals, which also applies to kinship. With reference to kinship, for example, it has been assumed by anthropologists that it is based on sexual procreation, as is the case in European culture. It has been revealed, however, that in some cultures sexual intercourse is not connected to procreation (Carsten Reference Carsten2023). It follows, therefore, that even anthropological research lacks analytic consistency in the way kinship is compared cross-culturally.

Returning to the article, the author uses several ethnographic examples to exemplify how matrilineal forms of descent correspond to ethnographic documentation with reference also to the Ethnographic Atlas by Murdock (Reference Murdock1967). As discussed above, however, ethnography carries inherent limitations and cannot, therefore, be considered as a litmus test for the otherwise acknowledged biases in archaeology. For example, anthropologists have challenged Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas from which parallels were drawn regarding kinship forms and ancient dwellings (e.g., Ember Reference Ember1973). It has been argued that their data were collected over a 60-year period (1890–1950) by different anthropologists, some of which were not even professionals (Wotela and Moultire Reference Wotela and Moultrie2008, 9–10). Other criticisms concern Murdock’s formulae, as in the case of calculating subsistence of animal husbandry on the weight of the food and not on its nutritional value (Wotela and Moultrie Reference Wotela and Moultrie2008, 10 with references).

Archaeologists have also expressed concerns for the selective reference to ethnographic analogues to deduce conclusions about past societies (Orme 1992, 27). Gender archaeology, in particular, has exposed the androcentric biases in ethnographic models (Nelson Reference Nelson1997, 116) which assume universal patterns of labour division at the expense of women (Rice Reference Rice, Walde and Willows1991, 440; Wright Reference Wright and Wright1991, 198). The author also suggests that matrilineal descent and inheritance of land existed in Neolithic Europe because gathering in hunter-gatherer-forager societies is a female activity. We should not forget, however, that the models ‘man the hunter’ and ‘woman the gatherer’ have been revised in recent years and the validity of ethnographically informed models of gender division of labour, which deny women’s contribution to hunting, have been questioned on archaeological grounds (e.g., Sussman Reference Sussman1999, Haas et al. Reference Haas, Watson, Buonasera, Southon, Chen, Noe, Smith, Llave, Eerkens and Parker2020).

Lastly, the author argues for the usefulness of the anthropological concept of ‘house societies’ to analyse the archaeological remains of dwellings, and of ethnographic parallels that link matrilocal descent with residence. Archaeologists, however, have questioned their ability to calculate house-floor areas, as architectural remains are affected by factors such as multiple construction, reuse and remodelling, or the use of open spaces as domestic living areas (Schillaci and Stojanowski Reference Schillaci and Stojanowski2002, 353; Mina Reference Mina, Cappel, Günkel-Maschek and Panagiotopoulos2015, 185).