Discussion
One of the most promising avenues for ancient DNA research is its potential to reveal patterns of biological relatedness that can inform the analysis of kinship in prehistoric populations (e.g. Sjögren et al. 2020; Fowler et al. 2022). Perhaps the most striking aspect of the present study has been the discovery that all seven individuals buried in Barrow 1 are close biological relatives. The group comprises a father (Burial 5), four of his children (three brothers (Burials 3a, 3b and 4) and a sister (Burial 1)), his granddaughter (Burial 2), and a third-degree male relative of the siblings (Burial 6) who is most likely their maternal cousin, great uncle or mother’s half-brother. Since no biological relationships can be identified between individuals buried in different barrows, it thus seems probable that each accommodated the remains of a distinct familial group, although we should bear in mind that forms of kinship based on factors independent of biological relatedness (e.g. Brück & Frieman 2021) will always elude detection by DNA analysis. The presence in Barrow 1 of four full siblings, and the implied existence of a fifth (mother of Burial 2), together with the absence of definite half-siblings, is also suggestive of a monogamous family structure, though it is always possible that half-siblings may have existed but simply not have been buried within the barrow. Assessing how this familial structure might articulate with broader kinship patterns requires a dialogue between genetic, ethnographic and archaeological evidence. At first sight, the genetic evidence appears to hint at a possible matrilineal structure in Barrow 1, since all but the father share the same mitochondrial DNA, Burial 2 is related to the rest of the group through the ‘missing’ sister, and Burial 6 is related to the rest of the group through the ‘missing’ mother. Nonetheless, there are several indications that the group composition of Barrow 1 cannot be characterized as being based on matrilineal descent. Most significant, perhaps, is the presence of the biological father and his children, who together form the ‘core family’ within the tomb. This is not typical of matrilineal systems, where the father is typically buried separately with his natal matriline (cf. Ensor et al. 2017: 742). The two female relatives (the mother of the siblings and the mother of the grandchild (Burial 2)), who are the only multi-generational links connecting this core family to the non-first-degree relatives and would thus be central to any scenario of matriliny, are also the only core members of the family that are absent from the tomb. Indeed, it is striking that no individual within Barrow 1 is buried with either their mother or any other maternal ancestor,
undermining the notion of a matrilineal basis for selection. Neither does the genetic evidence lend support to the idea of bilateral descent, where spouses are characteristically buried together (Ensor et al. 2017: 741). The physically present individuals within Barrow 1 have a definite male-centred aspect, since they include a father (Burial 5), his four children, and his grandchild. Yet the presence of a maternal relative (Burial 6) and a grandchild from a different patrilineage (Burial 2) suggest that this does not represent a straight forwardly patrilineal system. Despite the close biological relationships between all occupants of Barrow 1, therefore, the genetic evidence does not provide clear support for any specific kinship
structure drawn from the ethnographic literature. In considering these findings, it is important to remember that biological relatedness need not equate to social relatedness, which can be constituted very differently (cf. Brück 2021; Brück & Frieman 2021). In a society where many would have died young, as is evident from the age profile of Barrow 1 itself, many children would have been raised in households of relatives who were not their biological parents. Indeed, relationships of fosterage were apparently institutionalised in certain Iron Age societies in Europe (Karl 2005). In this context, it is possible that the granddaughter and likely cousin from Barrow 1 (Burials 2 and 6) were additional dependents of the senior male (Burial 5), acquiring membership of the patriline through adoption or fosterage. Given their age profile, they may perhaps be dependents who died before marriage, still resident in their ‘father’s’ household. Such a ‘messy’ and fluid, but essentially patrilineal, system could explain the absence from Barrow 1 of the mother, who may have been returned to her natal group for burial (cf. Ensor et al. 2017), although it does not explain the absence of the fifth sibling (the mother of the young woman in Burial 2), who by the same logic would have been buried with her father in Barrow 1. We must also bear in mind that, while societies may espouse certain idealised kinship structures and social practices, these need not always be rigidly adhered to in practice (e.g. Ilcan 1994). The biological relationships between the individuals buried in Barrow 1, combined with the stratigraphic and osteological evidence, suggests a short use-life for the barrow. The father is identified steologically as a middle adult, approximately 35–50 years at death (although likely at the older end of this range), while the others (where age can be estimated) died as younger adults. The time gap between their deaths is thus likely to be short, perhaps no more than a decade or so. The internal stratigraphy of Barrow 1 demonstrates that the father’s grave (Burial 5) was cut by that of one of his sons (Burial 4) and by that of the likely cousin (Burial 6) (Figure 3a). The degree of intercutting is, however, minimal and the excavation plan suggests that the latter two graves were laid out to respect that of the father, which was thus probably marked above-ground. Burial 3, which represents the double grave of two brothers (presumably buried at the same time), is cut by that of their sister (Burial 1) and closely respects the grave of their niece (Burial 2). The central placement of Burial 1, combined with its stratigraphic position, suggests that it represents a conscious ‘closing’ of the monument. The results from Dolge njive have implications for the interpretation of the many other small barrows found individually, in small groups, or within more extensive barrow cemeteries throughout the region. At Kapiteljska njiva, Novo mesto, for example, most of the 67 barrows contained 10 graves or less, and are likely to be of short duration (e.g. Križ 2019: 261, 314– 15). It seems likely that the burial groups within these barrows were constituted along similar lines to Barrow 1 at Dolge njive, and it remains unclear why such tombs should be so short-lived, rather than containing multiple generations of the same kinship group. One possibility may be that this society was highly mobile, with kin groups frequently fissioning and moving, leading to the establishment of new burial mounds. Other barrows in the region, however, were used for several centuries and contain much larger numbers of burials; perhaps as many as 400 at Preloge near Magdalenska gora (Dular & Tecco Hvala 2007: 123– 6; Tecco Hvala et al. 2004: 124). Finally, it is important to note the overall sex bias of the Dolge njive group, where males outnumber females by 7:2 (5:2 in the better-preserved Barrow 1). Although based on a small sample, so not statistically significant (P=0.45 for a two-sided test of equal numbers of males and female considering all burials together), this imbalance may suggest that factors other than kinship, perhaps relating to biological sex, social position, or circumstances of death, played a part in determining the composition of the burial population. This of course should not be surprising, given that funerary rites seldom present a straightforward reflection of social organisation, but are rather the outcome of complex processes of negotiation among the living (e.g. Parker Pearson 1999; Fowler 2013). Conclusion
The genetic results from Dolge njive confirm the close biological relatedness of individuals
buried within the same barrow. They do not, however, provide a definitive guide to
understanding the kinship practices of the interred community. While links through the
maternal line appear to have been important, the group composition within Barrow 1 does not
suggest either a matrilineal or bilateral kinship structure. Evidence for a straightforwardly
patrilineal system is also weak, although these results may nonetheless be the products of a
more flexible patrilineal system, which pragmatically included the adoption or fosterage of
cognatic relatives (including through the female line).
The results from Dolge njive have implications for our wider understanding of Early Iron
Age kinship and funerary practices in southeast Europe. The shift from flat cremation
cemeteries to the burial of multiple individuals under substantial barrows in itself marks a
new concern with the grouping and ordering of the dead and with their visibility in the
landscape. Whilst the provision of weaponry and other martial accoutrements in a substantial
number of male burials across the region frequently presents the deceased as a physically
dominant warrior, this dimension of social power is balanced by female grave assemblages
containing objects of considerable intrinsic value and prestige. As at Dolge njive, grave
goods were evidently highly gendered, but not necessarily ranked (e.g. Teržan 1985; 2010).
The genetic data too suggest the dual importance of male and female descent in determining
the composition of the cemetery population. As we have seen in other contexts (Fowler et al.
2022), aDNA analysis reveals kinship structures that are potentially highly complex and
unlikely to be reducible to simple patterns of patrilineal or matrilineal descent. Indeed, such
kinship relations, built through both male and female lines, will have provided wider and
potentially more robust social networks than those based on purely patrilineal or matrilineal
principles alone. Future genetic and isotopic analysis, using a large sample of additional
barrows from some of the more extensive cemeteries in the region will help us to better
understand this complex emerging picture.
