Post

Hannah Moots
@mootspoints.bsky.social

A bit late posting this, but it was great to work on this perspective piece with @kstsosie.bsky.social and Mehmet Somel, in which we explore what’s at stake when we talk about “kinship” in ancient DNA studies and who gets to define human connections across time. 🧵 www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

cambridge.orgThe Tie That Binds Us? Challenging the Primacy of DNA in Kinship Studies and Re-Centring Community in Defining Human Connections across Time | Cambridge Archaeological Journal | Cambridge CoreThe Tie That Binds Us? Challenging the Primacy of DNA in Kinship Studies and Re-Centring Community in Defining Human Connections across Time - Volume 36 Issue 2

15 reposts34 likes

Hannah Moots
@mootspoints.bsky.social

Shares DNA is not the same as kinship. Treating genetic relatedness as the primary measure of kim and belonging can sideline and community-defined understandings of kinship, reinforce dominant Western frameworks, and obscure the process of making (rather than being) kin.

Hannah Moots
@mootspoints.bsky.social

This isn’t just an academic question. This type of biological determinism shapes real-world decisions, including legal and institutional ones. When DNA is privileged over other ways of knowing, it can undermine community self-determination and reinforce narrow, essentialist ideas of identity.

Hannah Moots
@mootspoints.bsky.social

In The Tie That Binds Us?, we call for critical reflection on who conducts archaeogenomic research, whose interests it serves, and how different knowledge systems can inform our understandings of kinship. The goal: to re-centre communities in defining human connections, past and present.