Muller 2006.4


62

Verwandschaftsanalyse im alemannischen Gräberfeld 
von Kirchheim/Ries (Analysis of Relationships within 
the Alemannic linear graveyard of Kirchheim/Ries 
[In German])  By Kurt W. Alt and Werner Vach. Basler 
Hefte zur Archäologie Volume 3 2004. Archäologie-
Verlag Basel.

Archaeologists have long been stymied when 
confronting a fundamental aspect of ancient social 
systems—kinship. While kinship terms and systems 
are featured in every beginning cultural anthropology 
textbook, archaeologists were left wondering if their 
ceramic design motifs or the spatial patterning in 
cemeteries really provided insight into relations of 
marriage and descent in ancient societies. In response 
to this need, Alt and Vach set out to develop a method 
of assessing genetic relationships among individuals in 
skeletal samples derived from archaeological contexts. 
The method has been used on skeletal material 
collected from a large variety of archaeological contexts 
of varying sample sizes, such as a mass grave from 
the Roman Imperial period, Neolithic mass graves in 
Germany and Abu Dhabi, a Paleolithic triple burial, an 
Early Iron Age cemetery, a late Slavic cemetery, and a 
Merovingian cemetery, several reports of which have 
also been published in English (Alt et al., 1995a; Alt et 
al., 1995b; Alt et al., 1997; Alt and Sedlmeier, 1990; Alt 
and Vach, 2001; Alt et al., 1995c; Alt et al., 1992). 

This monograph concerns the skeletal sample at 
the Alemannic cemetery of Kirchheim/Reis, which 
represents the largest sample yet investigated using 
their methods. The body of the monograph is written 
in German, although summaries in French, Italian and 
English present basic information about the cemetery, 
the methodology, and the results. The authors begin 
Chapter 1 with a consideration of the goals of a biological 
kinship analysis and how it can serve to further the 
traditional archaeological goal of understanding 
ancient social systems. They include a critical 
consideration of how the terminology and concepts 
employed in biological kinship analysis intersect with 
established (although sometimes contentious) concepts 
within socio-cultural anthropology and archaeology. 
The authors make it clear that socially defined kinship 
relations do not necessarily have biological components 
and therefore cannot be investigated using techniques 
that rely on genetic relationships among individuals.  
The authors realize that the results of their analyses 
provide only part of the picture and that additional 
sources of archaeological and anthropological data 
must be consulted.

In Chapter 2, the authors present the methodological 
foundation of their approach for investigating 

biological kinship among ancient populations. Dr. Alt, 
a physical anthropologist, and Dr. Vach, a statistician, 
have developed a statistical method to assess biological 
kinship based on the comparison of similarities 
among individuals using a large catalog of non-metric 
traits of the skull, jaws, and teeth (Alt, 1997). Certain 
assumptions and potential issues must be considered 
when using this approach. For example, the method 
relies on a comparison of phenotypic similarities. 
In other words, it relies on the portion of any shared 
genetic information that is actually expressed as traits 
in common among individuals, and therefore does 
not directly identify the specific genetic relationship 
between individuals. In addition, the analysis is based 
on the observation of non-metric traits with varying 
penetrance and expressivity. This means that family 
members can only be identified in the event that they 
express traits typical of their family and that such traits 
are observable. In many cases, traits are obliterated 
by dental wear and disease as well as taphonomic 
processes. For a large, relatively well-preserved 
sample such as Kirchheim/Ries, these problems are 
minimized.

In order to find related individuals, the method 
employs a statistical search procedure that compares 
each individual and each trait to create combinations 
of individuals (termed “structures”). Significant 
structures are based on non-metric traits with low 
frequencies in the population, which also have a low 
global probability of conspicuousness (G-value), 
indicating a low probability of observing the same 
combination by chance among unrelated individuals 
in the sample. More detailed discussions of the method 
and its statistical basis have been published in English 
(Alt and Vach, 1991; Alt and Vach, 1992; Alt and Vach, 
1993; Alt and Vach, 1998).

In Chapters 3 and 4, Alt and Vach present the results 
of their analyses of the cemetery at Kirchheim/Ries. In 
total, 460 individuals were scored for 933 non-metric 
traits of the skull, jaws, and teeth. Since the sample of 
individuals from the total cemetery was quite large, 
the authors were able to investigate subgroups within 
the cemetery and still maintain reasonable sample 
sizes. This procedure ensured that the analysis was not 
dominated by large, very robust groups or individuals 
with a large number of well-preserved, rare traits. 
They looked for both general patterns based solely on 
the non-metric traits, and on subgroups created using 
archaeological attributes such as chronological time 
period, sex of the individual, spatial organization, 
wealth of grave goods, and types of grave goods.

Results of the analysis of all graves revealed eight 
familial structures, some of which have additional 
archaeological characteristics that indicate a social 
relationship as well. An unexpected result from the 
analysis of all graves is the relatively large number of 
individuals who appear in more than one of the eight 

Book Review



63

groups, which suggests genetic interrelationships 
among the eight possible families that used the 
cemetery.

Archaeological mortuary analyses rely upon spatial 
patterning in cemeteries, grave construction, and 
assemblages of grave goods to recreate a sense of the 
social identity of an individual. Comparison of these 
data for all the individuals in a cemetery facilitates the 
reconstruction of the social organization as expressed 
in burial practice. However, there has been debate as 
to which aspects of burials reflect which aspects of 
social organization, for example vertical social status 
(wealth), horizontal social status (one’s position in 
relation to others within the same level of a hierarchy), 
or membership in other types of groups  such as kin 
groups, trades, or religious groups. In their analysis 
of the cemetery at Kirchheim/Ries, Alt and Vach 
demonstrate that, for some types of grave goods, it is 
possible to identify biological kin structures that are 
at least partly correlated with certain types of grave 
goods.

In a previous cemetery analysis, Jorgensen 
(Jorgensen et al., 1997) identified 14 likely familial 
groupings of graves based on archaeological mortuary 
data. Tests seeking a biological basis for the 14 
archaeologically defined familial groupings revealed 
only one convincing biological family structure (Group 
IV), although sample sizes for some of the hypothesized 
archaeological family groups were small due to poor 
preservation. Analysis of subgroups defined by the 
presence of specific grave goods met with more success. 
Several new familial structures were identified, and 
these frequently showed spatial clustering as well. In 
many cases, the structures contained several graves 
with a particular item, but also some graves without 
it. Additionally, the same items also occurred in graves 
that were not in the structure. This phenomenon 
illustrates the difficulties of identifying familial 
structures based on archaeological evidence alone, as 
well as the utility of testing archaeological subgroups 
in biological kinship analysis.

Perhaps the most powerful results for the 
understanding of the social organization at the 
cemetery of Kirchheim/Ries come from the analysis of 
the “traditional aristocracy” (those showing unusual 
wealth) within the main cemetery and the analysis of 
the spatially distinct “noble burial compound”, which 
contained wealthy burials dating only to the final 
three chronological phases of the cemetery. Previous 
archaeological interpretations had speculated that 
the nobles were locals originally interred as part of 
the general population, who later founded their own 
distinct cemetery to emphasize their separate identity. 
Analysis of the “traditional aristocracy” within the 
main cemetery shows biological kinship structures 
among its members, as well as possible connections 
to other burials within the main cemetery. Analysis of 

the spatially distinct noble burial compound revealed 
fundamental differences between its population and 
the main cemetery that can only be explained by the 
presence of two genetically distinct populations. 
Archaeologically, individuals interred in the noble 
burial compound show affinities to the Avars (an 
eastern tribe contemporaneous with the Alemanni) in 
both material culture and burial rituals.

A contentious area of archaeological research lies in 
understanding the process of the introduction of new 
material culture and cultural practices. It is often unclear 
whether the appearance of new elements indicates the 
movement of actual people or the diffusion of goods 
and ideas, especially in times of intensive population 
movement. Although the geographic origin of the 
individuals within the noble burial compound cannot 
be identified based on their skeletal traits, the biological 
kinship analysis did reveal that the appearance of 
foreign material culture and burial practices at the 
cemetery of Kirchheim/Ries coincided with the arrival 
of a genetically distinct population.  

Alt and Vach’s analysis of the Alemannic cemetery 
at Kirchheim/Ries provides an excellent example 
of the effective use of non-invasive, non-destructive 
methods for analyzing dental and skeletal data in a 
truly bioarchaeological context. The results of their 
analyses demonstrate the potential for biological 
kinship analysis to add a new dimension to mortuary 
analysis and a new source of data that can be applied 
to some of archaeology’s most perplexing problems.

Deann Muller
Department of Anthropology
The University of Chicago

LITERATURE CITED

Alt K. 1997. Odontologische Verwandtschaftsanalyse. 
Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.

Alt K, Munz M, Vach W. 1995a. Hallstattzeitliche 
Grabhügel im Spiegel ihrer biologischen und sozialen 
Strukturen am Beispiel des Hügelgräberfeldes 
von Dattingen, Kr. Breisgau-Hochschwarzwald. 
Germania 73:281-316.

Alt K, Pichler S, Vach W. 1995b. Familial relationships 
of inhabitants of a late-roman villa rustica. In:  Jacob 
B, Bonte W, Alt K, Pieper P, editors. Advances in 
forensic sciences. Berlin: Köster, p 263-267.

Alt K, Pichler S, Vach W, Klima B, Vlcek E, Sedlmeier 
J. 1997. Twenty-five thousand-year-old triple burial 
from Dolni Vestonice—an ice age family? Am J Phys 
Anthropol 102:123-131.

Alt K, Sedlmeier J. 1990. Anthropologishce Unter-
suchung und Kulturhistorische Bedeutung des 
menschlichen Zahnfundes aus der Kohlerhöhle, 
gemeinde Brislach, Kanton Bern. Archäologisches 
Korrespondenzblatt 20:241-248.

Alt K, Vach W. 1991. The reconstruction of genetic kinship 

BOOK REVIEW



64

in prehistoric burial complexes-problems and 
statistics. In: Bock H, Ihm P, editors.  Classification, 
data analysis, and knowledge organization. New 
York: Springer, p 299-310.

Alt K, Vach W. 1992. Non-spatial analysis of “genetic 
kinship” in skeletal remains. In: Schader M, editor. 
Analyzing and modeling data and knowledge. 
Berlin: Springer Verlag.

Alt K, Vach W. 1993. Detection of kinship structures 
in prehistoric burial sites based on odontological 
traits. In: Andresen J, Madsen T, Scollar I, editors. 
Computing the past: computer applications and 
quantitative methods in archaeology: Aarhus: 
Aarhus Unversity Press.

Alt K, Vach W. 1998. Kinship studies in skeletal 
remains: Concepts and examples. In: Alt K, Rösing 
F, Teschler-Nichola M, editors. Dental anthropology: 
fundamentals, limits, and prospects. New York: 
Springer, p 537-554.

Alt K, Vach W. 2001. Untersuchungen zur 
Verwandtschaftsstruktur der merowingerzeitlichen 
Bevölkerung von Eichstetten am Kaiserstuhl. 
In: Sasse B, editor. Ein frühmittelalterliches 
Reihengräberfeld bei Eichstetten am Kaiserstuhl. 
Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag, p 475-642.

Alt K, Vach W, Frifelt K, Kunter M. 1995. Familienanalyse 
in kupferzeitlichen Kollektivegräbern aus Umm an-
Nar; Abu Dhabi. Arab Archaeological Epigraphs 
6:65-80.

Alt K, Vach W, Pichler S. 1992. Familienanalyse an 
kaiserzeitlichen Skelettresten aus einer Villa 
rustica be Regensburg-Harting. Bayerischer 
Vorgeschichtsblatt 57:261-276.

Jorgensen L, Alt K, Vach W. 1997. Families at Kirchheim 
am Ries. Analysis of Merovingian aristocratic and 
warrior families. In: A Jorgensen A, Clausen  B, 
editors. Military aspects of Scandinavian society in 
a European perspective, AD 1-1300. Copenhagen, p 
103-112.

BOOK REVIEW