Study casts doubt on ‘incestuous royalty’ in Neolithic Ireland

(Press-News.org) New research has cast doubts over suggestions an incestuous social elite ruled over the ancient people of Ireland more than 5,000 years ago.

Researchers examined the evidence from burials of individuals at the Newgrange prehistoric monument in Ireland - a large circular mound containing a chamber where cremated and unburnt human remains were placed, the discovery of which led to speculation that those buried there must have been from an elite class or a royal family.

In 2020, the DNA analysis of a bone skull fragment found in the chamber, however, suggested that at least one of the individuals buried there was the result of a relationship between two siblings or a parent and child, and was also distantly related to others buried in the chamber.

It is believed that only particular individuals were buried in the chamber and therefore they must have held a ‘special’ position in society.  The assumption was that if an individual born of incest was placed in the chamber, that this practice must have been ‘accepted’ by society, possibly because it was ‘common’ among a ruling elite.

A research team, including the University of York and University College Dublin, however, have now shown that there is no corroborating evidence in nearby settlements, dietary practices, or trade, that an elite existed either economically or socially.

Researchers now believe the society at the time was more equal, based on the fact that they appeared to share and exchange resources, as well as live in similar dwellings.

Professor Penny Bickle from the University of York’s Department of Archaeology, said: “The evidence all points to a much more collective ethos. There are not wide disparities in diet, houses are relatively flimsy, and all similar to each other.  

“There are no large settlement systems or trade mechanisms, and we also don’t see production of craft on the scale that we see in other ancient societies such as in Ancient Egypt, where incest was  thought to be practiced by the ruling elite.

“We can only begin to understand these monuments and tombs if we examine the social lives or the communities that built and use them, and when we start to do this, this idea of a ‘social elite’ or a form of royalty starts to appear less likely.”

Older than Stonehenge and the Pyramids of Giza, Newgrange is believed to have been built by a farming community that prospered in the Boyne Valley, County Meath, some 5,000 years ago.  Newgrange was rediscovered in AD 1699 and its interior had been heavily disturbed prior to its modern excavation in the 1960s, and so researchers question whether this was even the original burial place of the skull fragment, referred to as NG10, dated to 3340 - 3020 BC.

The genetic clustering in passage tombs, such as at Newgrange, typically reflects very distant biological relationships - like second cousins or great-great-great-grandparents - rather than close familial ties.  To establish if the tombs were reserved for an elite, researchers say they would expect much closer genetic ties than they have seen at Newgrange. 

It is more likely that these tombs were places that reflect family, work, and other social relationships, rather than the mark of an elite family group. 

Associate Professor Jessica Smyth, from University College Dublin, said: “People were definitely being selected for burial in passage tombs - the whole community does not end up in these monuments. However, we don’t know the reasons behind this selection, and why they were thought to be special.

“Unlike today, bodies don’t tend to be buried ‘whole’ or ‘intact’ in this time period. Before they end up in megalithic monuments, bodies are broken down, sometimes cremated and even circulated around their communities.”

As so many of the dead found in these passage tombs were broken down and mixed with cremated remains, and possibly moved around to different places in the landscape, it is not clear the people who placed NG10 fragment in Newgrange knew who they were in life or who the parents of this individual were, casting further doubt on how ‘special’ the individual might have been. 

Professor Penny Bickle said: “It is by no means clear that the monument was the first burial site of NG10 and the tomb grew in stages, so tracing who this individual was is a very difficult task indeed.  As it stands the incestuous origins of NG10 is a one-off compared to all of the DNA data we have for Neolithic Ireland.

“There are still many questions to solve here, but building this picture means looking at the monument together with the society that was built up around it, and from this, we get a step closer to understanding a community that was much more inclusive and equal than previously thought.”

The research is published in the journal Antiquity.

END