Possible interpretations of non-anatomical graves from Tell el-Farkha.
Are they examples of deviant burials?

Atypical primary burials

When speaking of primary burials, they are understood as burials that were deposited in the first and original location from which they were not moved or manipulated until their archaeological exploration.³ Although the situation seems clear and in most cases is treated as an axiom, it is, in fact, the most susceptible to various interpretation errors. They may result from unrecognised post-burial intrusions, both looting induced and accidental, due to later activity at the spot; unsatisfactory state of preservation, causing disintegration of some skeleton parts; unawareness of taphonomic processes and their influence on the decomposition of the human body, which include minor body shifts.

Five burials belong to the first variant: G2, G26, G69, G91, and G114. All graves consist in small mastabas or pits lined with bricks, most likely eroded mastabas; in all cases, the structures were equipped with rather valuable objects. Moreover, all the examples belong to the Protodynastic cemetery.

In G2 (fig. 1a⁴), the deceased woman (about 30-40 years of age) was deposited with her head pointing north with an eastern declination. The upper part of the body was better preserved and deposited on the back, with the left arm tightly bent in the elbow, while in the right arm only the humerus was in anatomical position. The lower part of the body probably was laid on the left side. Of the lower limbs, only the right femur was in a natural or close to a natural position, the tibia was moved but not far from the knee, while the remaining bones were in disarray with all articulations broken. In the rather spacious tomb, the body had been squeezed between the vessels and the eastern wall of the burial chamber, possibly in a kind of organic bag but not a more solid container, which would force small jars to fall in other directions rather than over the body. Even if it was planned to bury the deceased in an empty space of the burial chamber, it did not last long, as the roof structure did not support the weight of the upper part of the construction and almost immediately collapsed. Since no intrusion traces were recorded, only the collapsed roof is blamed for a certain disorder in the tomb, such as overturned or crushed pots in the central part of the chamber. However, the dislocation of the lower part of the body must have been caused by another factor.

In G26 (fig. 1b), the skeleton of a 35-40-year-old man had been inserted so tightly into the bottom niche of the tomb that it was impossible to unhesitatingly define its original position. His knees and feet were turned as if lying on the right side; the localisation of arms tends rather to the back position, while the head was pointing north with an eastern declination, the face turned east. Of the thorax, only a few right-side ribs, a clavicle, and a humerus were preserved in their anatomical position. The left leg was found over the arm, the knee located about a dozen centimetres from the shoulder joint. It was almost completely preserved with the foot; the limb was very tightly bent, so the three long bones were parallel. On the long bones, the left palm and a few additional pieces of two long forearm bones were recorded, arranged in perfect anatomical order, although the forearm was much worse preserved. The right leg was also found to be in a poor condition; it was deposited below the left leg, but with a complete foot again. The arrangement of bones proves that the body was probably tied up and forced into the too small space, which caused partial transmission of some body parts, while others were perfectly anatomically organised. The fact that the left humerus, right forearm, and long bones of the right leg appear disarranged may be due to the fact that they were less tightly tied and later decomposed into at least partially empty space. Still, the degree of body contraction is too high and is naturally impossible. No traces of after-funeral intrusion were observed.

In G69 (fig. 1c), the remains of a 30-40-year-old woman occupied the centre of the burial chamber. In general, the body followed the flexed left-side position; its upper part turned toward the north with an eastern declination. Both arms were tightly bent and the left one approached the anatomical position of the face. The legs were also very tightly bent, with knees close to the chest and the left foot close to the pelvis. The palms and feet were not recovered, but it is possible that they were simply unpreserved. The unusual factor is the position of the skull lying on top of the anatomically arranged bones in the pelvis area, its facial part turned to the east. The very close position of limbs and no displacement of bones (except for the head, of course) suggest that the body was wrapped in an organic container like a bag or shroud, which was not preserved to our times, however, was stable enough to hold the bones in their original position. No traces of any after-funeral intrusions were noted; thus, it appears that the head was in the intended deposition spot. Furthermore, the context of the discovery, together with the poor state of bone preservation, does not give any hints as to the nature of the registered decapitation.

In G91 (fig. 1d), a man aged 24-30 years was buried in a position most probably attempted to be a contracted left-side one with the head turned to north with an eastern declination, however bones of the lower body part were much dislocated. The state of the body suggests that it decomposed into an empty space, in an unpreserved organic container, or directly in the spacious tomb chamber. The head was facing east and the mandible was clearly separated from the skull. The chest was as if it had rolled on its back, with fairly well-registered loosely deposited ribs. The right arm was lying along the body, the left one as well although slightly displaced from the anatomical location. The head of the right femur was still in the articular socket. The femur rested in a straight position, but the tibia and fibula were strongly curled upward, while the foot was separated and discovered on the breastbone. The three long bones of the left leg were lying almost parallel to each other, but perpendicular to the main axis of the body. Neither palms nor the second foot were discovered. Most displaced bones can be easily explained by natural taphonomic factors; however, the position of a foot over the chest cannot be caused naturally and results from a human action. Since the body was sprinkled with a regular layer of pure sand as a kind of funeral procedure and no subsequent intrusions were identified, the dislocation (and possibly also the lack of the other foot and palms) occurred at the time of the body internment.

Finally, in G114 (fig. 1e), the most likely juvenile owner of the tomb was buried with tangled limbs, but in a desperate attempt to “do it properly”. So, the head was turned north with a small declination to the east, and the remaining part of the body rested almost on the left side. Both arms were very close to their anatomical position, the right one only slightly bent and lying on the legs, the left one tightly bent and moved towards the face. Of the lower limbs, only the right femur was in the anatomical position, the remaining long bones dislocated. This time, the body decomposed into a closed space without larger voids, which is suggested by the position of the upper body parts bones and the fact that the tomb was very carefully closed. The chamber was filled with a layer of greasy and semi-liquid mud, then covered with mud brick rubble. The measures applied there, most probably for security reasons, cut the possibility of after-funeral intrusions, immobilised body parts, but also affected the state of their preservation.

There are two major issues which join the above examples. The first is the partially non-anatomical position of the bones. In the case of G69, there is no doubt that the unnatural location of the skull resulted from a deliberate action, which took place during the funeral. The act might have been either ritually or practically motivated; unfortunately, no other hints were preserved to decide. However, the remaining cases appear not fully intended, which suggests that the bodies were buried in an advanced state of decomposition when labile and some more persistent joints lose their stability, resulting in the separation of peripheral body parts such as fingers, limbs, or mandible⁵. However, the burials were carried out before skeletonisation because the general order of the bones was kept. In the cases discussed, the arrangement of the bones, partly non-anatomical but not scattered, gives the impression that the bodies were laid into an empty space left in the tomb in a kind of soft container like a bag or shroud, which itself was completely decomposed.

Another issue is that the bodies were deposited in graves with extensive construction and surrounded by interestingly composed offerings. Therefore, apart from the atypical position of the bones, these burials represent characteristic features of their period. Abandoning some burial rules, although drastic, has a very practical justification if we take into account the entire decomposition processes of the human body. This concerns swelling, darkening of the skin, the presence of putrefactive gases, and insect activity that accompany the first stages of soft tissue decomposition⁶ and force the living to limit contact with the dead body. It is also worth highlighting that no traces of post-funeral interference were recorded in any of these graves.

To summarise of the above observations, it can be concluded that the cases discussed (except for G69) represent primary but in the same time delayed burials, i.e. deposited in grave only ones, but at a time after the death. The term “delayed” is sometimes described as in between “primary” and “secondary” burials;⁷ however, the case of Egypt is somehow specific. In the following periods of Egyptian history, delaying burials became a typical element of Egyptian funeral customs, allowing priests to complete rituals, embalmers to mummify the body, and craftsmen to finalise tomb construction,⁸ thus supporting the allocation of “delayed” burials with those regular and “primary” ones.

Determining the reasons for the delay is much more difficult and can only be based on speculation. We need, of course, to exclude mummification because the procedure was only just being developed at that time,⁹ but there are other possibilities. One of them may be the well-attested involvement of the settlement’s inhabitants in trade with the Levant.¹⁰ The fact that no single burial with Egyptian characteristics has yet been found at Levantine sites with recorded Egyptian presence during the period in question or along the routes leading to them¹¹ only strengthens this suggestion. Another option may be the time-consuming process of building a tomb or the need to collect objects considered necessary to create an offering set. The early mud brick pre-stairway tombs were analysed by various authors¹² in terms of the effectiveness of their building method. According to the studies, if the largest structures consumed even a year of intense work, the smaller ones, like those of Tell el-Farkha, might have been ready for a funeral in a week or two at most. Under deltaic conditions, it would be sufficient to bury a deceased without the use of a temporary grave, but some damage to the integrity of the body could already have occurred. However, it is possible; the question remains why only few burials deposited in small mastabas are partially disorganised, and not all of them?

So maybe, this kind of atypical burials is another manifestation of the experimental trend characteristic of the Protodynastic cemetery or, on the contrary, it reflects the practical reasons. These might be the general situation of the settlement inhabitants preoccupied by construction matters or just deeply involved in long-distance trade. If so, the cases explained as delayed would be just an answer to the numerous long journeys of Tell el-Farkha residents, some of whom met a fatal ending. Perhaps even G69 is an atypical answer to unusual circumstances of death.

Secondary burials

The definition of secondary burials is not simple. Their main characteristic is advanced disarticulation of bones prior to final disposal¹³. They are explained as “double funeral”,¹⁴ any subsequent burial following an exhumation of skeletonised bones and their relocation,¹⁵ or the act of redeposition of a deceased from one place to another.¹⁶ Therefore, for the sake of the text, a “secondary” burial will be understood as an interment of disarticulated and skeletonised bones in the act of relocation of a previously buried body.

Due to a clearly visible disorder of the bones, this variant is easily recognisable. However, it tends to be overinterpreted as ritual-related, which is not impossible but simply difficult to prove. The variant is represented by four burials at the site: G39, G47, G117, and G124. G117 and G124 belong to the Early Dynastic cemetery, while G39 and G47 to the Old Kingdom. All the examples quoted were simple pit inhumations without intentional offerings. Individual cases will be presented in chronological order.

In the Early Dynastic grave G117 (fig. 2a), the incomplete remains of an adult man were found piled in the centre of the burial pit, deposited on a mat, and mixed with animal bones. There was no visible organisation of the skeletal material of any kind, but more detailed observations were impossible due to a very poor state of preservation of the material. Furthermore, the structure was only partially excavated, so full information is inaccessible.

Another Early Dynastic grave G124 (fig. 2b) comprised a badly preserved body of an adult deposited in a non-anatomical position, with pieces of the head deposited in the northern part of the pit. The extremely weak state of preservation allowed to identify only some fragments of smaller bones, which were, however, clearly scattered around the pit without any pattern.

The Old Kingdom G39 (fig. 2c) was a small deposit of bones found in a complete anatomical disorder, with the skull missing. Most of the material was represented by long bones of limbs, a few vertebrae, and phalanges, which were recognised as belonging to an about 24-month-old toddler. No clear pattern was observable, it seems probable that the bones were buried in a bag of organic matter that did not preserve.

Finally, G47 (fig. 2d) was a burial of an about 9-month-old infant. In some areas the bones were highly disorganised (long bones of limbs mixed with ribs in a random arrangement), although the general elongated shape with the skull turned south with a western declination was kept.

In all the cases described above, the deceased were buried at a time when the “proper” positioning of the body, that is the one required by the burial rules, was impossible. The bones piles in G117 and G39 prove that the burial had already taken place when the bodies were skeletonised. In the remaining cases, the stage of bone disorganisation is very high and certainly much higher than in the previous variant. Many bones are missing, and procedures aimed at posing the body were limited at most to positioning the head as if nothing else was possible anymore. The hypothesis is then that the bodies were buried when most of the soft tissues had disintegrated, thus the most suitable explanation is that we deal here with secondary burials, understood as the final but not the first interment of the deceased. Reasons for such practice may vary, and since none of the quoted examples provides any clear traces of rituals, its interpretation remains obscure. It is, however, interesting that all were the simplest burials ever registered at the site, where no special care for the burial could be observed.

Interpreting graves from the group as “secondary” can, in some instances, provoke questions, however, they all have in common a certain degree of manipulation with the bodies, and as such they fit well into the category of “anormative” inhumations.

Isolated cranium burial

This variant is illustrated by a single case from Tell el-Farkha, that is, G19 (fig. 3), which on the grounds of stratigraphy is dated to the Protodynastic. It was made up of an isolated cranium of an adult, probably a man. The cranium was lying on a mat, with its facial part up in a small pit without visible edges and dusty filling, and was orientated with its top to the north with a western declination. No other bones were registered; moreover, none of the graves around had a missing head, so the possibility that the cranium was taken from another structure is unlikely. It could also be assumed that the rest of the skeleton disintegrated naturally, if it were not for the fact that the cranium was found in a small pit, suitable for the cranium itself only. No ritual remains of any kind were recorded in the area. Obviously, G19 is a special case, which denies all the early Egyptian burial rules settled for the site, except for being an interment on a regular cemetery.

Explanation of the case is very difficult, also because there are no direct comparisons from the site. However, even looking further, just a few examples can be quoted. The most similar is a single case of isolated skull burial registered in Adaïma. Grave S418 from the Eastern Cemetery was a small pit covered with a pottery vessel.¹⁷ The skull, with the atlas and the axis still anatomically located, was deposited upside down and accompanied by a single faïence bead. The grave was found in a regular cemetery and, according to the discoverers, appears deliberate.

A bunch of other examples of only a skull found in a grave pit was registered in Minshat Abu Omar. Seven graves, that is, nos. 170, 302, 658,¹⁸ 790, 825, 833, 835, 851,¹⁹ belonged to children, and five to adults, that is, nos. 215, 767,²⁰ 225, 229, 825.²¹ Moreover, in seven additional cases, that is, graves nos. 164²² 223, 320, 402, 406, 791, 847,²³ there were only badly preserved teeth of children. A group of 19 such graves would be an argument for recognising them as a rare, but typical kind of burial, if it were not for the very poor state of preservation of the bones (at the site in general and especially in the specific cases) that implies the remaining parts of the bodies originally deposited as complete were simply dissolved. Therefore, the examples from Minshat Abu Omar do not, in fact, represent the cases of a solitary cranium burial.

Better understood examples come from the Levant with the practice of plastered skulls²⁴ variously interpreted as related to e.g. an ancestral cult or the act of finally defeating the enemy. Unfortunately, they are too remote in space and certainly in time, as they are dated to the period of PPN. Thus, the only relevant counterpart to the Tell el-Farkha grave comes from Adaïma.

A multiple burial

This variant is represented by only one case in Tell el-Farkha. G52 (fig. 4) is a multiple burial of three adults (presumably two women and one man), who, due to the weak state of bone preservation, were deposited in an unclear position. The best preserved was the skeleton of Individual 2 – a man in a visibly anatomical position, contracted on the left side, and the left arm slightly moved from its original position. Individual 1 was found to be above Individual 2. The remains were poorly preserved, so they were only tentatively identified as belonging to a woman. Her head was placed on a large piece of a pottery bowl, and from the rest of her skeleton deposited probably in a contracted left-side position, only a fragment of the pelvis and one leg were identified. Then, the worst preserved was Individual 3 of which only the skull and some very worn teeth remain, which were lying over the place where the unpreserved left palm of Individual 2 should have been deposited. The structural type of the grave (simple pit) and the arrangement of the bones of best preserved body suggest that the decomposition occurred in a closed space where the deceased was buried directly in the ground.

Some objects were found close to the bodies: fragments from a large bowl and a single faïence barrel-shaped bead. Their context is uncertain because the whole structure was damaged by a younger structure with a settlement function. No precise dating hints were observed, so the grave is only tentatively ascribed to the pre-Old Kingdom group, as its stratigraphic position does not match neither Protodynastic nor Early Dynastic cemeteries; however, the burial custom is too different from the Old Kingdom.

There are a number of interpretation issues with this grave. First, its stratigraphy and the unrepresentative objects by the bodies do not allow its dating. Second, at the site of Tell el-Farkha and in early Egypt in general, single burials are the norm, double ones (only four at the site, that is less than 3% of the total) are rarely registered but simultaneous (that is, both people were deposited at the same time). As such they can be understood as variants of single burials, only forced by the common moment of death of two closely related people.²⁵ However, graves consisting of more than two deceased are present in Egyptian tradition, although much rarer.²⁶ Some specific examples, unusual against the background of their cemeteries, can be quoted from Adaïma,²⁷ Naqada²⁸ or Gebel el-Silsileh.²⁹ The same is true in Tell el-Farkha with only one such example.

When taking a closer look, there is everything “unusual” with G52: its location far from other graves, three adults deposited in a single pit, the triangle arrangement of the bodies, the atypical orientation of their heads, the missing skeleton of Individual 3, and the large pottery fragment on which the head of Individual 2 was laid. The general state of preservation of the burial was very poor, the bones were often powdering while drying, which gives no information whether the bodies were placed already incomplete, its missing parts were naturally disintegrated, or the absent elements picture some post-funeral interference. The fact that the grave was overbuilt by a younger and nonrelated to the cemetery settlement structure does not clarify the complicated situation, although it limits the possibility of long-term sequential use of the grave pit. Anyway, there is no satisfactory clue on how to explain so many departures from even basic burial rules typical of the site. According to Miniaci (2019), who proposes a theoretical background to multiple Egyptian burials, we deal here with a direct multiple bound burial (as the bodies intentionally occupy a single space, and at least the bodies of Individuals 1 and 2 were tangled together as in an intimate relation). Furthermore, no visible signs of sequential deposition of following bodies would suggest its simultaneous character, however, the preservation state challenges any definite observation in this regard. One thing is certain, G52 represents a classic example of an anormative burial.