Scientists have discovered why one brother was buried in a lavish grave whilst the other was buried on the outskirts of the cemetery

New research into the Tamir necropolis in Mongolia shows that, for the nomadic Xiongnu elite, kinship was important, but it was not the be-all and end-all. A person’s position within the grave, the richness of their burial, and their proximity to the centre of the cemetery may have depended on their status, political role and symbolic affiliation.

The study has been published in the journal *Antiquity*.

The authors combined ancient DNA, archaeological data, statistics, machine learning and a method similar to constructing a ‘family tree’ – but not for genes, rather for burial customs.

Details

The Tamir necropolis was situated in what is now Mongolia and was in use from around the 1st century BC to the 1st century AD. People associated with the Xiongnu — the first major nomadic power of the Central Asian steppes, which rivalled the Chinese Han dynasty — were buried there.

Previous analysis of ancient DNA had shown that there were two related lineages at the cemetery — provisionally designated A and B. These can be traced back over five or six generations. However, alongside them were also individuals who did not belong to these families. In total, the study included 44 graves and 47 individuals, 19 of whom were genetically related to one another.

The most striking example is that of two brothers from the same generation. One of them was buried in grave 25 alongside his wife from grave 13B. This was one of the richest burials in the area, situated next to members of Line A. His brother from Grave 48 was found more than 200 metres to the north, on the edge of the necropolis.

In other words, they shared the same blood, but their posthumous status differed.

Why were the brothers buried differently?

Researchers believe that it was not simply a matter of family. The brother, who was buried lavishly and closer to the elite cluster, probably had a higher status or a more significant connection to the ruling line. His marriage may also have played a role: being buried alongside his wife and a prestigious group suggests an alliance that held political or symbolic significance.

The second brother, although entitled to be buried in this cemetery, found himself on the periphery. The authors point out explicitly that this arrangement may have signalled an internal hierarchy even within the ‘family’. He was a relative, but, judging by the location of his grave, he did not occupy a central position in the system of succession, power or legitimacy.

Put simply: amongst this steppe elite, merely being the brother of an important person was not enough. One had to occupy the correct position oneself within the network of power, marriages and alliances.

What the computer models revealed

The researchers did not simply compare the two graves by eye. They investigated which factors had the greatest influence on the layout of the cemetery: kinship, wealth, status or cultural traditions.

To do this, they used several methods. Statistical models examined how grave goods and the arrangement of graves were linked to kinship and wealth. Machine learning was used to identify hidden clusters within the data. Meanwhile, a method from evolutionary biology helped to construct not a biological ‘tree’, but a ‘cultural tree’ — based on similarities in burial rites, artefacts and the positioning of the bodies.

The conclusion did not support the simple explanation that ‘this is a family cemetery’. Kinship was indeed present, but it was not the overriding factor. The organisation of the necropolis was more strongly determined by socio-economic factors, power, alliances and symbolic affiliation.

Why this matters

At first glance, an ancient cemetery containing relatives appears to be a family burial ground. But Tamir reveals a more complex picture: family ties may have been a way of affirming one’s status, but they did not guarantee equal honours.

Even within a single kinship line, people could occupy different positions. One brother might have been part of the central elite, whilst another might have remained on the periphery. Some were buried alongside important figures and rich grave goods, whilst others were buried further away, with fewer possessions or in a symbolically less prominent position.

This changes our view of Xiongnu society. It was not merely a confederation of clans where blood ties determined everything. It was an imperial system in which power, marital alliances, political legitimacy and an individual’s place within the wider hierarchy all mattered. The authors of the study describe it as a world organised not only by biological kinship, but also by the interplay of power, alliances and symbolic affiliation.

Background

The Xiongnu were the first known major political power of the nomadic steppes of Central Asia. Their empire emerged between the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC and long maintained a complex relationship with the Chinese Han dynasty.

The Tamir necropolis is situated on a promontory above the floodplain, not far from the confluence of the Tamir and Orkhon rivers. The eastern sector of the cemetery, studied in this paper, contains elite graves. Some of these featured large stone circles and deep burial pits.

Researchers suggest that the two kinship lines within the cemetery may have reflected the division of power among the Xiongnu into right and left branches. In such a system, kinship was important, but it operated in conjunction with the political structure. Consequently, a person’s place after death may have depended on how closely they were linked to the direct line of authority.

Source

Study: Ameline Alcouffe et al., “Genetic relatedness, social status and cemetery organisation: the Xiongnu Tamir necropolis, Mongolia”, Antiquity, 2026.