A game of tombs?

Rethinking what the dead can tell us about Neolithic society in Ireland

Who was buried in the passage tombs of Neolithic Ireland? For centuries, many thought that these monuments were the final resting places of a ruling elite, and in 2020 this seemed to be confirmed by ancient DNA analysis which revealed that some of the individuals interred within them were related. Now, however, Penny Bickle, Kerri Cleary, Catherine J Frieman, Neil Carlin, Daniela Hofmann, and Jessica Smyth describe recent research that examines the results in light of their wider archaeological context, exploring complex funerary rites which, they argue, were just one form of kin-building among a community with much wider social networks.

‘You cannot take it with you’ may be a common piece of wisdom today, but it seems that this sentiment has not always been popular. In prehistory, some people were generously provided for on their journey into death, and funerary finds often extend beyond an excavated skeleton to encompass the objects that accompanied an individual into the ground; traces of rituals, like feasting, that surrounded their burial; and the architecture that was built to house the dead, from humble pits to mighty megalithic tombs. By contrast, material evidence for living communities can be much more ephemeral, placing us in the challenging position of often having a richer dataset for death than for everyday life. It is tempting to take such archaeological evidence at face value, assuming that grand tombs and exotic grave goods were reserved only for kings and princes, while everyone else was buried with rather less lavish attention – or not given a formal burial at all. However, we cannot map modern ways of mourning on to past societies, nor assume that they left us a straightforward record of who was who when they were still alive. Instead, in our recent research (originally published in Antiquity; see ‘Further reading’ on p.34), we argue that, by carefully contextualising ancient DNA evidence with contemporary burial rites, we can develop a new picture of life and death in Neolithic Ireland.

TOMBS FOR KINGS?

During the Neolithic, when farming first spread along the Atlantic parts of Europe and more settled lifestyles replaced hunter-gatherer traditions, some of the dead were placed in chambered tombs. Many of these still stand (in contrast to contemporary domestic architecture, little of which remains above ground) and, rather than representing the resting place of just one individual, these were communal monuments containing the remains of multiple people and combining diverse burial practices. Some occupants had been cremated, others were buried unburnt, and some remains were disarticulated and mixed together. Early antiquarians like John Beddoe (1826-1911), who excavated Stoney Littleton Long Barrow in Somerset, tended to interpret these enigmatic arrangements as the burial of a ‘chief’ surrounded by dependents who had probably been put to death to accompany their lord into the afterlife. Today, however, advances in archaeological science offer a much more nuanced view.

Focusing specifically on Neolithic Ireland, these communal tombs were built in a range of different styles. In the earlier Neolithic (c.3800-3300 BC), three main types were constructed: portal tombs, court tombs, and simple passage tombs. This last form, comprising a burial chamber reached by a narrow passage made from large upright stones and covered by a circular stone or earthen mound, continued to be built into the later Neolithic, but from around 3200 BC it took on a much larger scale. The grandest and most famous Irish passage tomb is probably Newgrange which, along with Knowth and Dowth, forms a UNESCO World Heritage Site located at Brú na Bóinne (Bend of the Boyne) in County Meath. Due to the monument’s imposing size and elaborate architecture, Newgrange has long been thought of as an elite burial place, reflecting increased power differences at this time. The antiquarian Thomas Molyneux expressed this view almost 300 years ago, writing in 1726 that ‘we may easily gather ’twas raised in honour of some mighty prince, or person of the greatest power and dignity in his time’ – and, rather more recently, this enduring interpretation appeared to have been confirmed by two different pieces of new genetic evidence from aDNA analysis (see CA 366).

First, it was found that people buried in some of these tombs were distantly related to each other, suggesting that they came from a specific lineage or set of family dynasties. Second, it was proposed that these lineages formed a select, special group, based on the discovery that one man – represented by a small skull fragment recovered from inside the chamber at Newgrange – had closely related parents, either full siblings or a parent and child. It was argued that the incidence of incest that had produced this individual, who has been called NG10, must have been socially sanctioned because he had been buried at such an important place. Drawing parallels with other past societies such as ancient Egypt, where it appears that sibling marriages were practised in order to keep inherited wealth together, the researchers concluded that Newgrange, like the Pyramids, would have been associated with a ruling elite within Neolithic society.

Looking at Newgrange today, with its impressive quartz façade and fine examples of megalithic art, it is easy to be convinced of these arguments. Yet much of what constitutes modern Newgrange is the result of a 1960s reconstruction of an interpretation of the monument’s final phase. During the Neolithic, Newgrange was always in the process of being built. Archaeological evidence attests to it having been constructed in phases over many generations, with clear indications that it was not designed with a single final form in mind (unlike the Great Pyramid of Giza, which was built to a predetermined design c.2600 BC). Similar evidence has come to light at Knowth: we can now tell that its largest passage tomb mound, which covers two back-to-back chambers, was initially built as a smaller monument. Only later were both passages expanded and encompassed within the large earth and stone mound that we see today. At both Newgrange and Knowth, their stones were successively reworked: some were redecorated, with newer megalithic art placed over older motifs, while other elements saw materials being taken from other tombs or older structures and incorporated into the fabric of newer parts of the monuments. These were ongoing projects that saw times of high activity and development interspersed with quieter periods of minimal activity and, significantly, their chambers remained accessible throughout this process.

This is an extract of an article that appeared in CA 426. Read on in the magazine, or click here to read it online at The Past, where you can read all of the Current Archaeology articles in full as well as the content of our other magazines, Current World Archaeology, Ancient Egypt, and Military History Matters.