Making posthumanist kin in the past

As Brück (2021) eloquently highlights, many archaeologists are dissatisfied with the narratives that are emerging from ancient DNA (aDNA) research. Oliver Harris and I have argued that one of the central problems with aDNA research is its theoretical foundation (Crellin & Harris 2020). We suggested that a nature-culture binary shapes the narratives that emerge from this work and has real political consequences. In this binary, nature has been aligned with scientific fact and made primary, whereas culture has been presented as secondary and associated with a ‘froth’ of human variability. Brück’s (2021) article is a timely addition to the debate, as studies of kinship that draw on aDNA research are increasing(e.g. Knipper et al. 2017; Mittnik et al. 2019; Sjögren et al. 2020), and they are, as she shows, caught in the same binary trap. Genetic relatedness is not a necessary measure of kinship, and as Brück’s cross-cultural comparisons demonstrate, there are many varied ways to make kin. [Opening paragraph]