DNA study changes what we knew about Ireland's oldest graves

A new analysis of ancient DNA and archaeology from Newgrange challenges the sensational idea that incestuous royals once ruled Neolithic Ireland.

The experts argue that the famous skull fragment known as NG10 does not prove a hereditary elite, and that the broader evidence points toward a community with shared ritual and modest daily life.

Newgrange sits in the Boyne Valley about 30 miles north of Dublin and dates to roughly 3200 BC – older than Stonehenge and the pyramids at Giza.

Revisiting Newgrange DNA evidence

The reappraisal takes aim at a 2020 study that tied NG10’s close-kin parentage to a supposed ruling stratum.

That earlier work sequenced dozens of genomes and reported an adult male conceived by either a sibling pair or a parent and child, then linked genetic kin across passage tombs to argue for social hierarchy.

This new reading weighs context, taphonomy, and settlement data alongside genome results from ancient DNA – a field often called archaeogenetics.

The researchers note that Newgrange’s interior was disturbed for centuries before the 1960s excavations, complicating claims about where NG10 originally lay and what that meant socially.

The study also points out a softer signal in the genetic relationships within passage tomb groups. Instead of tight, dynastic pedigrees, the clustering tends to show distant ties, the kind you would expect among second cousins or further removed relations.

The research team includes Professor Penny Bickle of the University of York and Professor Jessica Smyth of University College Dublin (UCD). Their collaborators – from Ireland, the U.K., and Australia – bring both archaeological and genetic expertise to the table.

The limits of one skull

NG10 dates to between 3340 and 3020 BC and comes from Newgrange’s chamber – a setting once read as an unmistakable mark of high status.

The new paper urges caution, noting that the chamber was subject to antiquarian digging and later disturbance, which could have shuffled bones and blurred original placements.

It also highlights a basic statistical issue: a single case of consanguinity within a large and complex mortuary record is a weak foundation for sweeping claims about kings or fixed hierarchies.

No kings in the DNA

In 2020, the team linked NG10’s genome to relatives across Ireland and proposed a dynastic stratum. That interpretation fit one plausible model of how big monuments come together, but it was not the only way to read the pattern.

Carlin and colleagues argue that the same genetic patterning can reflect wide social networks and negotiated identities, not fixed top-down rule.

Their synthesis of burials, settlements, and biomolecular data lays out a kinship model that emphasizes island-wide ties after about 3600 BC, rather than narrow hereditary dominance.

Daily life without rulers

If a steep hierarchy had governed society, we might expect clear differences in diet, housing, or control of resources.

Instead, the record shows insubstantial dwellings, few signs of central storage, and scattered evidence of arable downturns between 3400 and 2500 BC – findings that sit awkwardly with the idea of a consolidating royal class.

“Unlike today, bodies were not typically buried ‘whole’ or ‘intact’ during this period. Before they ended up in megalithic monuments, bodies were broken down, sometimes cremated, and even circulated within their communities,” said Smyth.

Neolithic Irish communities did not treat the dead the way we do today. That distinction matters for how we interpret a single unburnt skull fragment in a mixed chamber.

Many tombs combine cremated material with disarticulated pieces from multiple individuals, added over time as communities returned to curate and deposit remains.

Selection for passage tomb burial clearly occurred, but the criteria remain uncertain.

The new work suggests that selection could have tracked social ties that do not map neatly onto bloodlines – such as shared labor, ritual roles, or community standing that shifted across a lifetime.

DNA reveals wider networks

The phrase “genetic clustering” can sound like family trees, yet the Irish data rarely show close kin inside the same tomb space.

Instead, relationships usually sit several degrees out, which undercuts the picture of a tomb reserved for an immediate ruling lineage.

That does not deny hierarchy in all forms. It simply cautions against turning one rare genome into a story about god-kings when settlement and mortuary evidence point another way.

Rethinking Ireland’s first farmers

Newgrange demanded labor, planning, and shared meaning. The picture that emerges is a farming society that pooled effort for monuments while living in modest houses and relying on cooperative networks rather than strict command.

The skull with an incest signature still matters, but as a rare event within a broad social tapestry. The stronger message is how communities built kin through work, ritual, and care for the dead, not only through ancestry.

The study is published in the journal Antiquity.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–