Next Article in Journal
Contemporary Jewish Genealogy: Assuming the Role of Former Landsmanshafts
Previous Article in Journal
Black Gay Men in Graduate Education: A Collaborative Autoethnography of Finding Black Queer Joy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Family in Medieval Society: A Bioarchaeological Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Genealogy
Volume 8
Issue 1
10.3390/genealogy8010025
genealogy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Family History in the Iberian Peninsula during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age: An Interpretation through the Genetic Analysis of Plural Burials

by
Sara Palomo-Díez
1,2,*,
Ángel Esparza-Arroyo
3,
Cláudia Gomes
1,2,
Olga Rickards
4,
Elena Labajo-González
1,
Bernardo Perea-Pérez
1,
Cristina Martínez-Labarga
4 and
Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo
1,2
1
Health Legislation, Psychiatry, and Pathology Department, Medicine Faculty, The Complutense University of Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain
2
Forensic Sciences Group, Genetics and Toxicology, San Carlos Research Institute (IdISSC), Clínico San Carlos Hospital, 28040 Madrid, Spain
3
GIR ‘PrehUSAL’, Department of Prehistory, Ancient History and Archaeology, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
4
Centre of Molecular Anthropology of Ancient DNA Studies, Department of Biology, University of Rome Tor Vergata, 00173 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genealogy 2024, 8(1), 25; https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy8010025
Submission received: 11 January 2024 / Revised: 14 February 2024 / Accepted: 4 March 2024 / Published: 6 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Origin and History of Family through Genetics)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Throughout history, it has been observed that human populations have buried the deceased members of their communities following different patterns. During the Copper Age and the Bronze Age—periods on which this study focuses—in the northern sub-plateau of the Iberian Peninsula, we identified different patterns of multiple or collective burial. This work analyzes a total of 58 individuals buried in different multiple or collective graves, to investigate whether the practice of these burials implies a family or biological link between individuals buried together. With this aim, STR markers of nuclear DNA were analyzed, as well as the hypervariable regions I and II of mitochondrial DNA, establishing both close kinship relationships and relationships through maternal lineage. We observed different burial patterns, detecting certain maternal lines preserved in some common burials maintained over time. Close family relationships were observed to a lesser extent, with some occasional exceptions. The results of the analysis formed the basis for a discussion on the concepts of family and community.

1. Introduction

If we observe any modern cemetery, we can see that the burials are usually family-related; so, if individuals buried in the same grave were exhumed and analyzed genetically, we would surely find biological kinship. This could be close kinship, or at least biological lineage relations among the individuals buried together. There may be exceptions, such as couples buried together without descendants or other relatives; or the case of adopted children (Lozano-García et al. 2023). But in general, it is more usual to find family tombs with a biological link among the individuals buried together.
From this, we can deduce that, in today’s culture, the weight of biological family ties in society, in general, is considerable. This would suggest that the organization of cemeteries may reflect the most important social relationships in our society. However, the image of the importance of the family in today’s Western society may be poorly representative with regard to other cultures or periods, given that the concept of family may have varied, and this could be reflected in the burials (Gomes et al. 2021).
Likewise, if we transfer this idea to past times, the study of kinship relationships between individuals buried together in other past cultures, we could get an idea of the weight given to certain social relationships. We can learn whether the biological family was also one of the key structures in society in other historical periods (Gomes et al. 2021), or whether, on the contrary, greater importance was given to other social relationships not related to biological ties.
In the case of a tomb in which we find different individuals buried together, there are different possible archaeological interpretations, which must be considered, including details such as stratigraphy, the superposition of bodies, bioarcheological studies, etc. First of all, we must discern whether it is a primary burial (when the skeleton is found in the original grave) or secondary burial (when the human remains have been transferred from a different original grave) (Aliaga 2012). Furthermore, regarding the number of individuals buried together, there are different possibilities: on one hand, there are collective burials, which consist of burial sites used over a long period (for example, megaliths or funerary caves), where human remains are deposited over time; these are similar to modern cemeteries, which are reopened every time a death occurs. On the other hand, there are cases of multiple individuals buried together at the same time, such as the graves used during a plague, or to bury the victims of a massacre or execution by firing squad.
In some particular cases, it can be difficult to determine whether the burial was simultaneous or not and these can be called plural burials. These can be, for example, double or triple burials, in which archaeologists must establish—during excavation and in the laboratory—whether the bodies were buried at the same time, or at intervals over a longer period.
Our research focuses on the human populations that lived during the 3rd and 2nd Millennia B.C. in the Duero basin (Central Spain), especially in its most central areas, where several individuals have provided sufficiently well-preserved, culturally characterized, and radiocarbon-dated samples to form the corpus of paleogenetic research. During this period in history, the different populations developed a variety of funeral rituals, many of them featuring collective burials.
The geographical area of interest for our study featured periods characterized by different materials (ceramics, metals, etc.) and funeral rituals, though with two main periods in terms of material culture: the Chalcolithic or Copper Age and the Middle/Late Bronze Age, subdivided into the phases Pre-Beaker and Beaker and Proto-Cogotas I and Cogotas I, respectively. As previously mentioned, different funeral traditions were implemented over time, alternating between collective, multiple, and individual burials. There were two historical moments of new population arrival: first, during the Pre-Bell Beaker period, associated with the K mitochondrial haplogroup; and second during Proto-Cogotas I culture, with other lineages of the H, HVO, and T haplogroups (Palomo-Díez et al. 2023).
During the studied periods, a trend is observed towards collective or multiple burials, in which different individuals are buried together. This work explores possible close kinship and maternal lineage between the individuals buried together in during the Third and Second Millennia B.C. in ten archaeological burial sites in the Duero basin (Central Spain).

2. Material and Methods

2.1. Material

A total of 58 individuals were analyzed from 10 different burial sites in the Duero basin (Central Spain), corresponding to 5 consecutive cultural periods. Table 1 summarizes the different archaeological sites by chronological period and the number of individuals from each grave analyzed.
The burial sites studied have different characteristics, as outlined below:
Pre-Bell Beaker period:
  • El Tomillar: two different plural burials were found. The first, burial 1, was a collective secondary burial. The second, burial 13, was a multiple primary burial. In this case, we analyzed the eight individuals buried in the multiple primary burial site (Robledo and Trancho 2001; Fabián-García 2001).
  • Los Areneros: a multiple secondary burial was analyzed, revealing nine individuals who had first been buried or laid exposed elsewhere. This was identified as a secondary burial site due to the fact that the individuals found were missing a series of bones. The final burial was performed all together, and it is impossible to know whether they all came from the same primary grave or site (Delibes de Castro et al. 2007).
  • Los Cercados: the three individuals buried in the same multiple simultaneous primary burial were analyzed (García Barrios 2007; Palomo-Díez et al. 2017).
Bell Beaker period:
  • Aldeagordillo: a collective burial was found, composed of several successive burials in a cist (Fabián-García 1991).
Middle Bronze age:
Proto-Cogotas I culture:
Cogotas I culture:

2.2. Methods

For the purpose of replicating the experimental procedure, we selected two teeth without cracks or cavities from each skeleton, according to the authenticity criteria of ancient DNA (aDNA)/(Pääbo et al. 2004; Palomo Díez 2015). In the case of the absence of teeth, we selected complete bone samples with good macroscopic appearance. The samples were cleaned using a Sand Blaster (Dentalfarm Base 1 Plus) to remove exogenous DNA from the outer surface (Palomo-Díez et al. 2018; Palomo-Díez et al. 2023). The samples were then irradiated with UV light (30 min) and transferred to sterile grinding vials. The grinding was performed in a Freezer Mill (SPEX Model 6700) and the resulting bone or teeth powder was stored at −20 °C until the DNA extraction was performed. For the DNA extraction, 250 mg of powder was taken from each sample, and the DNA extraction was performed according to the modified Rohland and Hofreiter protocol (Rohland et al. 2010). In the case of the Los Cercados archaeological site, the DNA was extracted using a non-destructive DNA extraction method (Gomes et al. 2015).
Genetic analyses were performed in an exclusive ancient DNA laboratory. Result reproducibility was assessed for every genetic marker by setting up two independent DNA extractions from each individual (from two different samples per individual) and at least two amplifications from each DNA extract and PCR amplification kit. To increase the number of markers, we used three different kits for the amplification of aSTRs (autosomal STRs): the AmpFLSTRs MiniFilerTM PCR Amplification Kit (MiniFilerTM) and AmpFLSTRVR NGM SElectTM PCR Amplification Kit (NGM), both from ThermoFisher Scientific (Foster City, CA, USA), and the PowerPlexVR ESX SYSTEM (ESX) from Promega. The PCRs were carried out according to the kit manufacturer’s recommendations (Mulero et al. 2008; Sprecher et al. 2009; Green et al. 2013). The STR amplicons were separated on an ABI PRISM 3730 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Waltham, MA, USA) and analyzed using GeneMapperVR software, version 4.0.
At least four PCRs were performed for each individual, two from each of the DNA extracts from the samples of each individual. A consensus genotype was reconstructed for each individual considering as valid the alleles that were obtained at least twice in two independent DNA amplifications from two different DNA extracts from each of the two samples from each individual. We considered only peaks over 50 RFUs in height. Exogeneous DNA contamination of the samples was monitored by checking against the genetic profiles constructed for all the people involved in sample manipulation (Supplementary Material S1).
The LR value for different possible kinships was calculated using Familias 3 software (Kling et al. 2014), using the “Blind Search” tool. Due to the lack of allele frequencies for the original population, we used a modern Spanish DNA population database from the same region (García et al. 2012) to investigate possible relationships between individuals. Further possible relationships among individuals were tested using the Blind Search Tool of the Familias 3 software (Kling et al. 2014).
For mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence analysis, the hypervariable region I (HVRI) (positions 16105–16399) was analyzed using the primers designed by Fernández (2005); and 345 bp of the hypervariable region II (HVRII) (positions 55–400) were amplified according to Martínez-Labarga and Rickards (1999).
At least 8 PCRs were performed for each individual:
-
Fragment 1 of HVI on Sample 1 of individual X
-
Fragment 2 of HVI on sample 1 of individual X
-
Fragment 1 of HVI on Sample 2 of individual X
-
Fragment 2 of HVI on sample 2 of individual X
-
Fragment 1 of HVII on Sample 1 of individual X
-
Fragment 2 of HVII on sample 1 of individual X
-
Fragment 1 of HVII on Sample 2 of individual X
-
Fragment 2 of HVII on sample 2 of individual X
The consensus mtDNA profile of each individual was reconstructed from these short overlapping fragments, taking into account only the results replicated at least twice.
The PCR products of all the valid amplifications were cloned to improve the robustness of the results (Supplementary Material S2). This technique confirmed the absence of contamination and molecular damage.
We also considered the analysis of Y-chromosome STR markers, but the poor molecular conservation of the Y-chromosome did not allow us to obtain reliable results.

3. Results

Partial STR profiles were obtained (a partial profile being one with at least four STR markers without considering amelogenin) in 19 of the 58 individuals analyzed. This indicates a poor preservation of nuclear DNA, providing analyzable results in only 33% of cases. In the case of mitochondrial DNA, the results were better, with a haplotype of hypervariable regions I and II of mtDNA obtained in 40 of the 58 individuals (69%). Table 2 summarizes the global DNA analysis results.
The results are organized according to the different chronological periods. Supplementary Material S2 includes the autosomal STRs analysis results and mtDNA haplotypes obtained for each analyzed individual.
The results obtained gave us no information about the Bell Beaker period.
Table 3 shows the results of the kinship analysis using the Familias 3 “Blind Search” tool for the individuals inhumed in each of the plural burials, organized according to different chronological periods. Table 4 summarizes the main global results on close kinship and maternal lineage kinship.
Table 4 summarizes the main results.

4. Discussion

Regarding the kinship analysis among individuals inhumed together in the Pre-Bell Beaker period, in the Los Areneros archaeological site, the strongest probable kinship was identified among individuals 2ARE, 8ARE, and 20ARE. However, these are excluded because they all have fewer than four markers. A possible link between 1ARE and 6ARE was detected (a possible 2nd cousin kinship), which cannot be ruled out, given that even the mitochondrial DNAs match. The obtained LR (16.72) is very low, but since this is a cousin relationship, the LR could be considered a possible kinship. This would be the only possible relationship detected in this burial. It should also be noted that although the haplotypes do not match, all the individuals have the same haplogroup: the mitochondrial macrohaplogroup K.
No other type of kinship relationship is observed. But it is striking that the mitochondrial DNAs, despite not sharing identical haplotypes, are very similar, belonging to the same macrohaplogroup K. In these cases, it is possible that these individuals are distant relatives because they formed a part of an endogamic population maintained over time, which reused the same burial sites over a long period. Furthermore, there are some pairs of individuals which share mtDNA haplotypes, particularly individuals 1ARE with 20ARE (haplotype frequency of 128/40995 according to the EMPOP database), and 2ARE with 5ARE (haplotype frequency 14/40995 according to the EMPOP database). These coincidences could be an indication of maternal lineage, especially in the case of 2ARE and 5ARE, because of the low haplotype populational frequency. We must take into account the fact that the Los Areneros site is a multiple secondary burial, and despite the movement of the human remains, it would appear they shared maternal lineage ties; this suggests that family ties did influence the burial methods.
However, in the other archaeological site from the Pre-Bell Beaker period, Los Cercados, no close or lineage kinship was identified. In this case, we must remember that it was a ritual grave (García Barrios 2007; Palomo-Díez et al. 2017), which could explain why the three individuals buried there did not have any biological connection. In this case, only three skulls were found (with no post-cranial remains) accompanied by the remains of numerous animals and other grave goods. These three women were probably buried together in a ritual celebration—perhaps a ritual sacrifice—and not due to any biological connections. The results obtained show that the three women were not related by maternal lineage, and we cannot say anything about close autosomal relations, because of the poor DNA preservation.
Moving on to the Middle Bronze Age period, we analyzed collective and multiple burials from four different archaeological sites. The first is La Revilla Cave, where the results obtained fail to reveal anything on close kinship (autosomal STRs). However, in terms of maternal lineage, we can state that the individuals buried in La Revilla Cave do not share the same maternal lineage, instead presenting distinct mtDNA haplotypes. This clearly shows that, in the Cueva de la Revilla, the reason for burying these individuals together did not concern biological ties.
In the case of El Cerro de la Horra, we were unable to obtain enough data to determine close kinship. However, the mtDNA haplotypes are identical in the three individuals, which indicates that they could have shared the same maternal lineage; this is reinforced by the fact that the shared haplotype shows low frequency in the current population (2/41920). In the same way, in the Los Rompizales archaeological site, the poor state of nuclear DNA preservation meant we were unable to obtain reliable information on close kinship. Nevertheless, there could be some type of undetected relationship between individuals RPZ3 or RPZ5, given that the poor autosomal profiles do not allow for close kinship results to be determined. However, individuals 1 and 3 could be related through their maternal lineage. No other family ties through maternal lineage were found among the rest of the buried individuals.
The Los Tolmos archaeological site provided us with the best-preserved DNA, which allowed us to obtain reliable results. In this case, a close kinship relationship of mother–daughter was identified between individuals LTB1 and LTB3, which was also confirmed with mtDNA (Palomo-Díez et al. 2018). This could have been a pregnant woman who died before giving birth. The other individual (LTB2) does not have a close biological relationship with LTB1 and LTB3. However, the three women could belong to the same maternal lineage since number 2 only differs from the numbers 1 and 3 in one position of the mtDNA, which could be a point mutation.
In contrast to what Villalba-Mouco stated in his article on the El Argar society in the south of the Iberian Peninsula (Villalba-Mouco et al. 2022), in the northern sub-plateau, there is no evidence of double burials involving unrelated individuals that could be heterosexual couples.
Finally, the last site, from the period of the Proto-Cogotas I Culture, Tordillos, failed to produce enough autosomal STR results to determine closely related relationships with solid LRs. However, a possible close relationship (siblings, half-siblings, or cousins) was detected between individuals TOR2 and TOR7, who also share mtDNA, which would reinforce the maternal side of the relationship. However, it is the only case, since the mtDNA tells us that the rest of the inhumated individuals here do not share any maternal lineage.
The most recently studied chronological period was the Cogotas I Culture, with the only case of the La Requejada archaeological site, where we found incomplete autosomal STR profiles, insufficient to determine any close relationships. Regarding the maternal lineage, mtDNA profiles were obtained only for individuals 2 and 3, who are not related through maternal lineage.
In conclusion, we can state that only two close kinships were observed in all the plural burials studied: the case of Tordillos, where we observe a possible case of brotherhood, supported also by mtDNA; and the mother–daughter relationship in Los Tolmos. However, this second case was most likely a pregnant woman buried with another unknown woman with whom she did not have any close kinship, or to whom she was maybe related through maternal lineage. This means it cannot be interpreted as a burial of close family members, in any case; rather, it involved different social dynamics (Esparza-Arroyo et al. 2017).
However, maternal kinship is observed in many, if not most, cases, with the exception of the ritual burial at Los Cercados (García Barrios 2007; Palomo-Díez et al. 2017) and the funerary cave La Revilla, used over a long period. Finally, a triple simultaneous burial was found at the La Requejada archaeological site. Observing the results obtained in this work, we can state that a considerable number of burial sites from these periods show signs of social and/or religious rituals and traditions, unrelated to whether the individuals buried together had family connections.
Broadly speaking, we observed no differences in the burial patterns throughout the different chronological periods considered. Notwithstanding, in the case of collective tombs, it can be reasonably expected for individuals buried together to present blood ties, given that this type of interment is typical for more modern family tombs or pantheons. This theory is confirmed in the case of Tordillos, as has also been observed in other early Bronze Age populations in southeastern Europe (Žegarac et al. 2021), also according to the mtDNA analysis (Žegarac et al. 2021; Knipper et al. 2017). Unfortunately, in the other collective burial cases analyzed (El Tomillar and Aldeagordillo), the results were insufficient due to poor DNA preservation. Nevertheless, the collective burial in the cave of La Revilla revealed no shared maternal lineage among the individuals; it could be interesting to research the Y chromosome paternal lineage for this site, although, the poor DNA template makes it difficult to obtain Y chromosome genetic profiles.
In the case of multiple burials, there is a greater diversity given that they can be due to the death of several individuals at the same time in a variety of circumstances (massacre, war, epidemic, etc.). In such cases, individuals may have been buried together without following the typical pattern of that society. This is observed at Los Cercados, where we find a triple simultaneous burial involving three people who were not biologically related, which is clearly a burial unrelated to any family ties. In the same way, at Los Tolmos, despite the identification of a maternal relationship, the two adult individuals were unrelated, of whom one merely happened to be pregnant.
In general, we have observed that the multiple secondary burials in various graves at Tordillos dating to the Proto-Cogotas I Culture seem to have been carried out over a long period by a community in which some individuals were linked by family ties. In one contemporary site, the La Revilla Cave, the collective burial also does not seem to have been carried out by a single family. These facts provide evidence of the probable exogamy practiced by the small communities of the Middle Bronze Age.
Regarding multiple burials in which different individuals were buried simultaneously, we can discern between small tombs with two or three individuals (such as Los Tolmos or Los Cercados), where we do not find close relationships or shared lineage, and El Cerro de la Horra, where the three buried people share the same maternal lineage. In the case of the larger multiple burials, such as Areneros and Rompizales, we also observed some maternal lineage relationships between the individuals, but no close kinship. This could point to the existence of populations with a certain degree of consanguinity, which would explain and lead to the conclusion that in both the Chalcolithic and the Bronze Age, beyond close kinship, belonging to a lineage was a very important factor.
In any case, each case needs to be analyzed individually, taking into account the archaeological, anthropological, and genetic characteristics in a holistic manner.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/genealogy8010025/s1, S1: Exogeneous DNA contamination of the samples was monitored by checking against the genetic profiles constructed for all the people involved in sample manipulation; S2: PCR products of all the valid amplifications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Á.E.-A., S.P.-D. and E.A.-P.; Methodology: S.P.-D., C.G. and C.M.-L.; Validation: S.P.-D., Á.E.-A. and E.A.-P.; Formal analysis: S.P.-D.; Data curation. S.P.-D. Writing—original draft: S.P.-D.; Writing—review and editing: S.P.-D., C.G., Á.E.-A., E.L.-G., B.P.-P. and E.A.-P. Supervision: E.A.-P., C.M.-L., E.L.-G., B.P.-P., and O.R.; Project administration: Á.E.-A.; Funding acquisition: Á.E.-A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Government of Spain: HUM2005-00139, HAR2009-10105, and HAR2013-43851; Castilla y León regional Government/University of Salamanca: 2012/00085.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data are available in the article. For more information, contact the authors ([email protected]).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abarquero, Francisco Javier, A. L. Palomino, and M. J. Negredo. 2005. La Cueva de la Revilla, un enterramiento colectivo del Bronce Protocogotas en la sierra de Atapuerca (Burgos). Boletín del Seminario de Estudios de Arte y Arqueología. Arqueología LXXI: 89–136. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abarquero Moras, Francisco Javier. 2005. Cogotas I. La difusión de un tipo cerámico durante la Edad del Bronce (Monografías 4). Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León. ISBN 84-9718-293-6. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aliaga, Almela Raquel. 2012. Términos y conceptos para el estudio de las prácticas funerarias en Arqueología. Revista Historia Autónoma. September 1. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/4048996.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2024).
  4. Antequem, S. L. 2009. Informe final de la excavación arqueológica en el yacimiento ‘Los Rompizales’. Proyecto constructivo Circunvalación de Burgos BU-30. Tramo Villalbilla de Burgos-Quintanadueñas (Provincia de Burgos). Informe Técnico depositado en el Servicio Territorial de Cultura (Junta de Castilla y León) de Burgos. Private Report. [Google Scholar]
  5. Delibes de Castro, Germán. 1978. Una inhumación triple de facies Cogotas I en San Román de Hornija (Valladolid). Trabajos de Prehistoria 35: 225–50. [Google Scholar]
  6. Delibes de Castro, Germán, Ángel Esparza Arroyo, Ángel L. Palomino Lázaro, and Javier Velasco Vázquez. 2007. Excavación arqueológica en Los Areneros de las Zumaqueras. La Lastrilla (Segovia). Informe técnico. Junta de Castilla y León. Private Technical Report. Available online: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3750838 (accessed on 10 January 2024).
  7. Esparza-Arroyo, Ángel, Javier Velasco-Vázquez, and Germán Delibes de Castro. 2012. Exposición de cadáveres en el yacimiento de Tordillos (Aldeaseca de la Frontera, Salamanca). Perspectiva bioarqueológica y posibles implicaciones para el estudio del ritual funerario de Cogotas I. BIBLID (0514-7336 (2012) LXIX, enero-junio pp. 95–128). Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236612168_EXPOSICION_DE_CADAVERES_EN_EL_YACIMIENTO_DE_TORDILLOS_ALDEASECA_DE_LA_FRONTERA_SALAMANCA_PERSPECTIVA_BIOARQUEOLOGICA_Y_POSIBLES_IMPLICACIONES_PARA_EL_ESTUDIO_DEL_RITUAL_FUNERARIO_DE_COGOTAS_I_Exposure (accessed on 10 January 2024).
  8. Esparza-Arroyo, Ángel, Sara Palomo-Díez, Javier Velasco-Vázquez, Germán Delibes de Castro, Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo, and Domingo Salazar-García. 2017. Familiar kinship? Palaeogenetic and isotopic evidence from a triple burial of the Cogotas I archaeological culture (Bronze Age, Iberian Peninsula). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 36: 223–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Esparza Arroyo, Ángel, Velasco Vázquez, and Germán Delibes de Castro. 2012. HUM 2005-00139: Planteamiento y primeros resultados de un proyecto de investigación sobre la muerte en Cogotas I. Una cultura de la Edad del Bronce en la Península Ibérica: Homenaje a Mª Dolores Fernández-Posse. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, pp. 259–320. [Google Scholar]
  10. Fabián-García, Juan Francisco. 1991. El enterramiento campaniforme del túmulo 1 de Aldeagordillo (Ávila). BSAA 58: 97–135. [Google Scholar]
  11. Fabián-García, Juan Francisco. 2001. El aspecto funerario durante el Calcolítico y los inicios de la Edad del Bronce. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. ISBN 84-7481-800-1. [Google Scholar]
  12. Fernández, Eva. 2005. Polimorfismos de ADN Mitocondrial en Poblaciones Antiguas de la Cuenca Mediterránea. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. [Google Scholar]
  13. García Barrios, Ángel. 2007. Un enfoque de género en la Arqueología de la Prehistoria Reciente del VAlle Medio del Duero: Los cráneos femeninos calcolíticos de Los Cercados (Mucientes, Valladolid). en C. de la Rosa Cubo et al. (coords.): Nuevos enfoques para la enseñanza de la Historia: Mujer y Género ante el Espacio Europeo de Educación superior. Madrid: Asociación Cultural Almudayna, pp. 41–56. [Google Scholar]
  14. García, Oscar, J. Alonso, J. A. Cano, R. García, G. M. Luque, Pablo Martín, I. Martínez de Yuso, S. Maulini, David Parra, and Iñaki Yurrebaso. 2012. Population genetic data and concordance study for the kits Identifiler, NGM, PowerPlex ESX 17 System and Investigator ESSplex in Spain. Forensic Science International: Genetics 6: e78–e79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gomes, Cláudia, Sara Palomo-Díez, Ana María López-Parra, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2021. Genealogy: The Tree Where History Meets Genetics. Genealogy 5: 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gomes, Cláudia, Sara Palomo-Díez, Joan Roig, Ana María López-Parra, Carlos Baeza-Richer, Angel Esparza-Arroyo, Juan Gibaja, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2015. Nondestructive extraction DNA methods from bones or teeth, true or false? Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 5: e279–e282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Green, Robert L., Robert E. Lagacé, Nicola J. Oldroyd, Lori K. Hennessy, and Julio J. Mulero. 2013. Developmental validation of the AmpF‘STRVR NGM SElectTM PCR Amplification Kit: A next-generation STR multiplex with the SE33 locus. Forensic Science International: Genetics 7: 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kling, Daniel, Andreas Tillmar, and Thore Egeland. 2014. Familias 3—Extensions and new functionality. Forensic Science International: Genetics 13: 121–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Knipper, Corina, Alissa Mittnik, Ken Massy, Catharina Kociumaka, Isil Kucukkalipci, Michael Maus, Fabian Wittenborn, Stephanie Metz, Anja Staskiewicz, Johannes Krause, and et al. 2017. Female exogamy and gene pool diversification at the transition from the Final Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age in central Europe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114: 10083–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lozano-García, Manuel, Cláudia Gomes, Sara Palomo-Díez, Ana María López-Parra, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2023. The Study of Adoption in Archaeological Human Remains. Genealogy 7: 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Martínez-Labarga, Cristina, and Olga Rickards. 1999. La utilización del DNA antiguo en la investigación de la historia evolutive humana. Revista Española de Antropología Biológica 20: 195–213. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mulero, Julio, Chien Wei Chang, Robert Lagace, Dennis Wang, Jennifer Bas, Timothy McMahon, and Lori Hennessy. 2008. Development and validation of the AmpFlSTR MiniFiler PCR Amplification Kit: A MiniSTR multiplex for the analysis of degraded and/or PCR inhibited DNA. Journal of Forensic Sciences 53: 838–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Palomino Lázaro, Ángel Luis, María José Negredo García, and Francisco Javier Abarquero Moras. 1999. Cabañas, Silos y Tumbas en el Yacimiento de El Cerro, La Horra (Burgos): A Vueltas sobre el Significado de un Campo de Hoyos en la Edad del Bronce de la Meseta. Numantia 7: 21–41. [Google Scholar]
  24. Palomo Díez, Sara. 2015. Caracterización genética de las poblaciones de las Edades del Cobre y del Bronce en la Submeseta norte de la Península Ibérica. Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. Available online: https://docta.ucm.es/entities/publication/32487a5e-7248-449a-b01d-12f3a68aa3ef (accessed on 10 January 2024).
  25. Palomo-Díez, Sara, Ángel Esparza-Arroyo, Cláudia Gomes, Olga Rickards, Javier Velasco-Vázquez, Ana María López-Parra, Carlos Baeza Richer, Cristina Martínez-Labarga, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2017. Genetic characterization and determination of the number of individuals by molecular analysis in a prehistoric finding. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Sries 6: e487–e489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Palomo-Díez, Sara, Ángel Esparza Arroyo, Mirian Tirado-Vizcaíno, Javier Velasco Vázquez, Ana María López-Parra, Cláudia Gomes, Carlos Baeza-Richer, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2018. Kinship analysis and allelic dropout: A forensic approach on an archaeological case. Annals of Human Biology 45: 365–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Palomo-Díez, Sara, Ángel Esparza-Arroyo, Olga Rickards, Cristina Martínez-Labarga, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2023. How Mitochondrial DNA CanWrite Pre-History: Kinship and Culture in Duero Basin (Spain) during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age. Genealogy 7: 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Palomo-Díez, Sara, Carlos Baeza-Richer, Ángel Esparza-Arroyo, Javier Velasco-Vázquez, Cláudia Gomes, Alejandra Sánchez-Polo, Ana María López-Parra, Antonio Blanco-González, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2019. Kinship analysis on skeletal ancient remains: The case of “El Cerro de la Horra” (Burgos, Spain). Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 7: 279–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Palomo Díez, Sara, Carlos Baeza-Richer, Eva Fernández-Domínguez, Cristina Gamba, Mirian Vizcaíno, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2011. Análisis molecular de relaciones familiares en los restos hallados en dos tumbas de la Cultura Cogota I (Bronce Final). La Requejada (San Román de Hornija, Valladolid) y Los Tolmos (Caracena, Soria). In Biodiversidad humana y Evolución. Madrid: Spanish Society of Physical Anthropology, pp. 129–35, ISBN (impreso): 978-84-695-6322-9; ISBN (PDF): 978-84-695-6323-6. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pääbo, Svante, Hendrik Poinar, David Serre, Viviane Jaenicke-Després, Juliane Hebler, Nadin Rohland, Melanie Kuch, Johannes Krause, Linda Vigilant, and Michael Hofreiter. 2004. Genetic analyses from ancient DNA. Annual Review of Genetics 38: 645–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Robledo, Beatriz, and Gonzalo Trancho. 2001. Estudio bioantropológico de una sepultura múltiple. La tumba 13 de El Tomillar (Bercial de Zapardiel, Ávila). Dpto. Biología Animal (Antropología). Facultad de Biología. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Available online: https://www.seaf.es/images/seaf/papers/vol23/final%20v%2023%2001%20001-025.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2024).
  32. Rohland, Nadin, Heike Siedel, and Michael Hofreiter. 2010. A rapid column-based ancient DNA extraction method for increased sample throughput. Molecular Ecology Resources 10: 677–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sprecher, Cynthia, Robert McLaren, Dawn Rabbach, Benjamin Krenke, Martin Ensenberger, Patricia Fulmer, Lotte Downey, Erin McCombs, and Douglas R. Storts. 2009. PowerPlexVR ESX and ESI Systems: A suite of new STR systems designed to meet the changing needs of the DNA-typing community. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series 2: 2–4. [Google Scholar]
  34. Tejeda, Jesús Carlos Misiego, Miguel Ángel Martín Carbajo, Gregorio José Marcos Contreras, Francisco Javier Sanz García, and Francisco Javier Ollero Cuesta. 2012. Enterramientos humanos de la Edad del Bronce en el yacimiento de Tordillos (Aldeaseca de la Frontera, Salamanca): Un cementerio del horizonte Cogotas I. In Una cultura de la Edad del Bronce en la Península Ibérica: Homenaje a Mª Dolores Fernández-Posse. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid, pp. 409–34. [Google Scholar]
  35. Velasco Vázquez, Javier, and Ángel Esparza Arroyo. 2016. Muertes ritualizadas en la Edad del Bronce de la Península Ibérica: Un enterramiento inusual en Los Rompizales (Quintanadueñas, Burgos). Munibe Antropologia-Arkeologia 67: 75–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Villalba-Mouco, Vanessa, Camila Oliart, Cristina Rihuete-Herrada, Adam B. Rohrlach, María Inés Fregeiro, Ainash Childebayeva, Harald Ringbauer, Iñigo Olalde, Eva Celdrán Beltrán, Catherine Puello-Mora, and et al. 2022. Kinship practices in the early state El Argar Society form Bronze Age Iberia. Scientific Reports 12: 22415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Žegarac, Aleksandra, Laura Winkelbach, Jens Blöcher, Yoan Diekmann, Marija Krečković Gavrilović, Marko Porčić, Biljana Stojković, L. Milašinović, M. Schreiber, D. Wegmann, and et al. 2021. Ancient genomes provide insights into family structure and the heredity of social status in the early Bronze Age of southeastern Europe. Nature Scientific Reports 11: 10072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Relation of archaeological collective burials and individuals analyzed.
Table 1. Relation of archaeological collective burials and individuals analyzed.
Chronological/Cultural PeriodArchaeological SiteLocalizationKind of Burial Number of Individuals
Pre-Bell BeakerEl TomillarBercial de Zapardiel, Ávila, SpainMultiple primary8
Los ArenerosLa Lastrilla, Segovia, SpainMultiple secondary9
Los CercadosMucientes, Valladolid, SpainMultiple primary3
Bell BeakerAldeagordilloAldeagordillo, Ávila, SpainCollective 4
Middle Bronze AgeCueva de la RevillaAtapuerca, Burgos, SpainCollective 8
Proto-Cogotas IEl Cerro de la HorraLa Horra, Burgos, SpainMultiple 3
Los RompizalesQuintanadueñas, Burgos, SpainMultiple primary5
Los TolmosCaracena, Burgos, SpainMultiple primary3
TordillosAldeaseca de la Frontera, Salamanca, SpainCollective secondary 12
Cogotas ILa RequejadaSan Román de Hornija, Valladolid, SpainMultiple primary3
Total number of individuals 58
Table 2. Global DNA analysis results (where a partial STR profile is one with at least four markers). #: number.
Table 2. Global DNA analysis results (where a partial STR profile is one with at least four markers). #: number.
Chronological/Cultural PeriodArchaeological Site# Inhumed Individuals# Partial STR Profiles Obtained# mtDNA Haplotype Obtained
Pre-Bell BeakerEl Tomillar800
Los Areneros947
Los Cercados333
Bell BeakerAldeagordillo400
Middle Bronze AgeCueva de la Revilla818
Proto-Cogotas IEl Cerro de la Horra303
Los Rompizales535
Los Tolmos333
Cogotas ITordillos1239
La Requejada322
Total number of individuals581940
Table 3. Kinship analysis was performed using the Familias 3 “Blind Search” tool for the individuals inhumed in each of the plural burials, organized according to the different chronological periods. The most probable kinships detected are marked in green; where probable kinship is established by at least 10 STR markers with or without shared mitochondrial DNA or, alternatively, 2 STR markers and shared mitochondrial DNA. The molecular sex of each individual is indicated in the second and third columns, ♀ for females and ♂ for males; “-” indicates cases, where it was not possible to determine the sex and the gender symbol, is in brackets (♀) or (♂) where the sex was determined anthropologically because molecular analysis was impossible.
Table 3. Kinship analysis was performed using the Familias 3 “Blind Search” tool for the individuals inhumed in each of the plural burials, organized according to the different chronological periods. The most probable kinships detected are marked in green; where probable kinship is established by at least 10 STR markers with or without shared mitochondrial DNA or, alternatively, 2 STR markers and shared mitochondrial DNA. The molecular sex of each individual is indicated in the second and third columns, ♀ for females and ♂ for males; “-” indicates cases, where it was not possible to determine the sex and the gender symbol, is in brackets (♀) or (♂) where the sex was determined anthropologically because molecular analysis was impossible.
Chronological PeriodPerson 1Person 2RelationshipNumber of Markers EmployedLRmtDNA Shared
Pre-Bell Beaker period1ARE ♂8ARE ♀Parent–child1142.986No
6ARE ♂8ARE ♀Parent–child1142.986No
1ARE ♂8ARE ♀Half-siblings171.9928No
6ARE ♂8ARE ♀Half-siblings171.9928No
1ARE ♂8ARE ♀Siblings171.7428No
6ARE ♂8ARE ♀Siblings171.7428No
1ARE ♂8ARE ♀Cousins136.4964No
6ARE ♂8ARE ♀Cousins136.4964No
1ARE ♂6ARE ♂Cousins1116.7206No
1ARE ♂6ARE ♂Half-siblings1113.5692No
1ARE ♂8ARE ♀2nd Cousins19.87411No
6ARE ♂8ARE ♀2nd Cousins19.87411No
1CER ♀3CER (♀)Siblings14.66881No
1CER ♀3CER (♀)Parent–child13.32149No
1CER ♀3CER (♀)Half-siblings12.16074No
1CER ♀3CER (♀)Cousins11.58037No
1CER ♀3CER (♀)2nd Cousins11.14509No
Middle Bronze Age period1REV ♂2REV -Half-siblings31.65641No
1REV ♂2REV -Siblings31.63107No
1REV ♂2REV -Cousins31.51798No
1REV ♂2REV -2nd Cousins31.15421No
Proto-Cogotas I culture period2RPZ ♀5RPZ ♀Half-siblings22.22181No
2RPZ ♀5RPZ ♀Cousins22.04135No
2RPZ ♀4RPZ ♂Cousins71.80764No
2RPZ ♀4RPZ ♂Half-siblings71.52991No
2RPZ ♀5RPZ ♀2nd Cousins21.34105No
1RPZ ♂4RPZ ♂Cousins61.04812No
LTB1 ♀LTB3 ♀Siblings101.47734 × 106Yes
LTB1 ♀LTB3 ♀Parent–child101.27541 × 106Yes
LTB1 ♀LTB3 ♀Half-siblings1043677.3Yes
LTB1 ♀LTB3 ♀Cousins102399.52Yes
LTB1 ♀LTB3 ♀2nd Cousins1040.0288Yes
9TOR -12TOR ♂Parent–child1143.129-
9TOR -12TOR ♂Half-siblings172.0643-
9TOR -12TOR ♂Siblings171.8143-
9TOR -12TOR ♂Cousins136.5321-
2TOR ♂7TOR ♂Siblings234.8663Yes
1TOR ♂2TOR ♂Siblings312.6649No
2TOR ♂7TOR ♂Parent–child211.6005Yes
9TOR -12TOR ♂2nd Cousins39.88303-
2TOR ♂7TOR ♂Half-siblings26.67802Yes
1TOR ♂10TOR -Siblings34.81948No
2TOR ♂7TOR ♂Cousins23.93346Yes
3TOR ♂10TOR -Parent–child13.89066-
6TOR ♂7TOR ♂Parent–child23.66156No
1TOR ♂2TOR ♂Half-siblings23.55878No
8TOR -10TOR -Siblings13.3252No
1TOR ♂7TOR ♂Siblings33.16624No
1TOR ♂2TOR ♂Cousins23.04409No
Cogotas I culure period1LR (♀)3LR ♀Parent–child214.0675-
1LR (♀)3LR ♀Siblings211.4268-
1LR (♀)3LR ♀Half siblings 6.18456-
Table 4. Summary of main results.
Table 4. Summary of main results.
Chronological/Cultural PeriodArchaeological Site (Individuals Number)Kind of BurialClose KinshipMaternal Kinship
Pre-Bell BeakerEl Tomillar (0)Multiple primaryNo resultsNo results
Los Areneros (7)Multiple secondaryNo Yes
Los Cercados (3)Multiple primaryNoNo
Bell BeakerAldeagordillo (0)Collective No resultsNo results
Middle Bronze AgeCueva de la Revilla (8)Collective No resultsNo
Proto-Cogotas IEl Cerro de la Horra (3)Multiple primary No resultsYes
Los Rompizales (5)Multiple primaryNo Yes
Los Tolmos (3)Multiple primaryYesYes
Tordillos (9)Some multiple secondaries pits YesYes
Cogotas ILa Requejada (3)Multiple primaryNo resultsNo
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Palomo-Díez, S.; Esparza-Arroyo, Á.; Gomes, C.; Rickards, O.; Labajo-González, E.; Perea-Pérez, B.; Martínez-Labarga, C.; Arroyo-Pardo, E. Family History in the Iberian Peninsula during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age: An Interpretation through the Genetic Analysis of Plural Burials. Genealogy 2024, 8, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy8010025

AMA Style

Palomo-Díez S, Esparza-Arroyo Á, Gomes C, Rickards O, Labajo-González E, Perea-Pérez B, Martínez-Labarga C, Arroyo-Pardo E. Family History in the Iberian Peninsula during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age: An Interpretation through the Genetic Analysis of Plural Burials. Genealogy. 2024; 8(1):25. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy8010025

Chicago/Turabian Style

Palomo-Díez, Sara, Ángel Esparza-Arroyo, Cláudia Gomes, Olga Rickards, Elena Labajo-González, Bernardo Perea-Pérez, Cristina Martínez-Labarga, and Eduardo Arroyo-Pardo. 2024. "Family History in the Iberian Peninsula during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age: An Interpretation through the Genetic Analysis of Plural Burials" Genealogy 8, no. 1: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy8010025

APA Style

Palomo-Díez, S., Esparza-Arroyo, Á., Gomes, C., Rickards, O., Labajo-González, E., Perea-Pérez, B., Martínez-Labarga, C., & Arroyo-Pardo, E. (2024). Family History in the Iberian Peninsula during Chalcolithic and Bronze Age: An Interpretation through the Genetic Analysis of Plural Burials. Genealogy, 8(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/genealogy8010025

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop