
































Re-evaluating the State of Mortuary Studies in the Near East 

Review by Michael Brass 

Remembering the Dead: Recent Contributions from Bioarchaeology and Mortuary Archaeology 

by Benjamin Porter & Alexis Boutin (eds) 

University Press of Colorado, 2014

As stated in the introduction, there is a dearth of holistic and “comprehensive treatments of mortuary

contexts” in Near Eastern archaeology, which here includes Egypt and Nubia. The point is made that

usually  only  one  or  occasionally  two  datasets  are  used,  be  they  writings,  grave  assemblages,  or

descriptions of the graves and/or skeletal remains. There is a move underway in the Sudan to buck this

trend and to bring the study of Sudanese cemeteries (Brass 2014, 2015, Brass and Schwenniger 2013;

Dann  2009;  Salvatori  2012;  Salvatori  and  Usai  2008;  Usai  et  al.  2014)  in  line  with  mortuary

archaeology conducted outside of the Near East (see, for example, Rakita et al. 2005, McHugh 1999,

Sullivan and Mainfort 2010). Consequently, a session was organised at the 2011 Society for American

Archaeology conference from which these publications arose.

The book is organised into seven chapters. Each chapter is co-authored by different scholars and

examine mortuary complexes across six countries. The first chapter, by the editors, is an introduction to

how mortuary archaeology is conducted more thematically outside of the Near East, while pointing out

that rarely are grave goods, tomb construction, architecture, ceramics and chronology treated together.

While  usually  site  reports  contain  chapters  on  each  by  their  own specialists,  holistic  attempts  to

integrate  and  cross-correlate  the  disparate  data  remain  in  the  minority.  The  publication  looks  at

settlement, regional and grave context; dental and skeletal data; visual and, where appropriate, written

sources; and the inscription and redefinition of memory from the perspective of non-elites. Four of the

remaining 6 chapters concern the third and second millennia BC which suggests potential for scholars

dealing with periods on either side to rise to the challenge.



Chapter 2 looks at Domuztepe in south-eastern Turkey. It dates from the first half to the middle

of the 6th millennium BC, within the Halaf period. There is a Death Pit, a Red Terrace and a ditch in

the Red Terrace with burials which the piece focuses upon. Buildings were sometimes deliberately

dismantled and rebuilt in relatively short bursts, which is in contrast to the three discussed features

containing burials. The Red Terrace was a structure which was continually renewed and expanded; a

shaft was dug down to the water table towards the end of the life of the Red Terrace and subsequently

carefully  refilled.  Within  the  burial  contexts,  dogs  and  humans  received  similar  treatment,  while

artefacts were also deliberately buried sometimes separately from any human remains or in association

with  fragments  such as  teeth.  Food was  also  buried:  in  the  Death  Pit,  animal  food remains  were

deposited in a layer before being overlain with human bones. The author suggest that food associated

with feasting was given special attention and deliberately deposited, creating a link in social memory

between eating, dying and memory. They also suggest that there are traces of artefacts being accessed

after originally buried and state that this may have been a means to connect past and present, and that it

could have been a mechanism whereby anything potentially dangerous could be controlled. Finally, the

authors  point  out  that  burial  is  not  simply a  disposal  of  individuals  but rather  part  of  a  culturally

constructed  entity,  a  socially  powerful  material  through which  meaning  is  gained  and ascribed  in

multiple contexts, including the use of actions and artefacts.

Chapter 3 looks at how Akkadian identity was constructed at Kish (Iraq) during the late 3rd

millennium BC.  “A”  cemetery  was  a  mound  featuring  the  “A”  palace,  which  was  destroyed  and

replaced by buildings which were the scene of multiple activities, including disposal of the dead. The

destruction and building activity are ascribed to the ruler Sargon, who defeated the previous (Sumerian)

ruler. The authors analysed how the bodies were treated, including the nature of the burial assemblages,

and  combined  it  with  the  results  of  their  biodistance  analysis.  The  latter  took  into  account  the

demographic profile of the buried individuals in determining the degree of biological affinity of those

interned within “A” cemetery and elsewhere in the city. Sadly, the authors also state that biodistance

studies  to calculate  “the degree of similarity  or dissimilarity  between a priori  groups (here,  burial

mounds and sexes) using the relative frequency of expression of the various nonmetric traits observed

in each group” is  uncommon in Mesopotamian studies, particularly when looking at  the effects  of

biological diversity at a local rather than regional level. The results showed that the males in “A”

cemetery were biologically distinct (either different population history or descent), while its females

and  males  and  females  from elsewhere  were  similar.  However,  the  mortuary  treatment  of  all  the

individuals were similar. The authors interpret the data as showing that some Akkadian males settled in

the city after its conquest by Sagan, males drawn from different genetic stock but not necessarily with



undue distinct  cultural  traditions.  Alternatively,  the  authors  also  point  out  that  perhaps  any ethnic

distinctions in life were not strong enough to warrant being represented in death by non-perishable

artefacts, although there may have been differences elsewhere in the mortuary rites. The decision to

have (semi-)homogenized mortuary treatments may thus have been a coping mechanism at a time of

great political flux.

Chapter 4 moves to Bahrain, in particular to the Bronze and Iron Age polity of Dilmun. The

authors re-analyze material excavated by a deaf graduate student, Peter B. Cornwall, especially the

skeleton of a disabled young woman who lived circa 2050-1800 BC. The aim was to examine how the

respective above individuals managed their conditions in life and to juxtapose them in death in order to

see how their respective societies commemorated them. Essentially, the chapter is a bioarchaeology of

livelihood or personhood where physical attributes are embodied socially in a variety of ways which

need to be teased apart. The Western assumption that disability may have been less tolerated in general

in the distant past is not necessarily true. The woman was buried with an unusually rich array of goods

compared with her contemporaries but it may not have been on account of her disability as she may

have held status in life unrelated to her physical condition.

Chapter 5 looks at biological group identity during the Early Bronze Age (EBA I-IV) at Bab

edh-Dhra’, Jordan. The authors look for changes in mortuary patterns and incorporate the results of

dental morphology with the wider social archaeology denoting more intensive occupation of the site in

EBA II-III. In the latter period, the occupation became more permanent. A large wall was constructed,

orchads were expanded and chanel houses for the dead were constructed above ground outside of the

settlement. Previously, the dead were buried in shaft tombs. In the latter, family members were buried

together. The former likely held extended kin. The numbers of interned individuals are argued to be

more accurately determined by “most  likely  number of  individuals” (MLNI) rather  than the  older

“minimum number of individuals” (MNI) technique through better addressing biases introduced by

taphonomic  processes.  Overall,  the  study  “looked  at  changes  in  [social  and  biological  structuring

forces] as a means of determining who represented the dead and by whom they were remembered” (p.

176).

Chapter 6 moves into Africa, notably into Nubia. Specifically, Tombos which was founded circa

1400 BC along an Egyptian colonial frontier and saw an entangled identity emerge which incorporated

both Egyptian and Nubian mortuary ideals. These ideals were re-conceptualised through multivocal

commemorations that emphasised different cultural memories reinterpreted in the present. The authors

therefore  explore  the  immediate  term  lived  experiences  versus  longer-term  interpreted  cultural

memories. Furthermore, the authors state (page 185) that



a  consideration  of  inscribed  versus  incorporated  memorialization  can  help  distinguish

between conscious and unconscious remembrances reflected in the archaeological record. We

suggest that like the distinction between inscribed and incorporated memory, commemorative

practice and cultural memory at Tombos do not represent contrasting forms. Instead they

indicate intersecting social fields that apply to varying degrees in different cases, reflecting

choices  conditioned  by  individual  predispositions  as  well  as  larger  social  and  political

contexts. (p. 185)

δ18O  data  supported  the  proposition  of  intermarriage  between  locals  and  colonists,  while  the

bioarchaeology revealed the presence of a great number of trauma wounds, particularly to the cranio-

facial area. The presence and reuse of pyramids, after they had stopped being used in Egypt, is also

used to show how cultural symbols were used in long-term cultural memory to the advantage of local

political elites.

Chapter 7, the last, looks at the newly discovered South Tomb Cemetery at Tell el-Armana,

which the authors term “a cemetery of forgotten souls.” While there was a portion of the cemetery for

more elite elements of the population, the nature of the grave goods, osteological analyses, the structure

of the graves and wider social archaeological knowledge of the town Armana itself show how the

diverse population was attempting to maintain their cultural connections to their home regions over the

course of two decades. The authors conclude that the living robbed the cemetery when the site was

abandoned not as an act of robbery per se but rather as commemoration through the removal of objects

or parts of individuals to repatriate back to their home towns or villages.

Overall, the editors achieve their stated aim with the articles. More Near Eastern archaeologists

should pick up the challenge and run with it.  It  is  no longer enough to have separate chapters on

mortuary and settlement patterns, grave structures, grave goods, and isotopic and osteological analyses

without extensive cross-referencing and integration in order to answer specific questions to determine

how the dead were commemorated and remembered, and what their social interactions were with the

living.

References Cited

Brass, M. 

2014.  Jebel  Moya:  A mortuary  complex  on  the  southern  edge  of  the  Meroitic  State.  African

Archaeological Review 31, 425-445.

Brass, M. 



2015.  Reinterpreting  chronology  and  society  at  the  mortuary  complex  of  Jebel  Moya  (Sudan).

University College London. Unpublished Ph.D dissertation

Brass, M. and Schwenniger, J.-L. 

2013. Jebel Moya (Sudan): New dates from a mortuary complex at the southern Meroitic frontier.

Azania 48, 455-472.

Dann, R. 

2009. The archaeology of Late Antique Sudan: Aesthetics and identity in the Royal X-Group tombs at

Qustul and Ballana. New York: Cambria Press.

McHugh, F. 

1999.  Theoretical  and  quantitative  approaches  to  the  study  of  mortuary  practice.  Oxford:  BAR

International Series 785.

Rakita, G., Buikstra, J., Beck, L. and Williams, S. (eds.) 

2005.  Interacting  with  the dead:  Perspectives  on mortuary archaeology  for  the new millennium.

Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Salvatori, S. 

2012. Disclosing archaeological complexity of the Khartoum Mesolithic: New data at the site and

regional Level. African Archaeological Review 29, 399-472.

Salvatori, S. and Usai, D. (eds.) 

2008. A Neolithic cemetery in the Northern Dongola Reach. Excavations at Site R12. Oxford: BAR

International Series 1814.

Sullivan, L. and Mainfort, R. (eds.) 

2010.  Mississipian  mortuary  practices:  Beyond  hierarchy  and  the  representationist  perspective.

Gainesville: University Press of Florida.

Usai, D., Salvatori, S., Jakob, T. and David, R. 

2014.  The  Al  Khiday  cemetery  in  Central  Sudan and  its  "Classic/Late  Meroitic"  Period  graves.



Journal of African Archaeology 12, 183-204.

Michael Brass is completing his doctorate in Archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology, University

College London. He focuses on the site of Jebel Moya (south-central Sudan), the largest mortuary

locality in sub-Saharan Africa which bordered the Meroitic state.

© 2015 Michael Brass


