empty tombs? the taphonomy of burials on bahrain

Amb nrch e p ~ 1995. 6 5-14

Printed ~n Denmark All rixhts reserved Copyr tgk f 0 Munksgaard 1995

Arabian archaeology and epigraphy

ISSN 0905-7196

Empty tombs? The taphonomy of burials on Bahrain

JUDITH LITTLETON Health Transition Centre, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia

The number of empty tombs on Bahrain has been the focus of several analyses of Bronze Age burial practices on the island. Such analyses, however, have failed to take into account normal taphonomic processes affecting the recovery of bone. Once the factors determining the state of preservation have been accounted for, the frequency of empty tombs found on Bahrain is seen to be comparable to numerous other sites in the world. It is argued that mortuary analysis must take account of the intervening steps between burial in an ancient society and modern excavation of that burial, and that, in the case of Bahrain, elaborate explanations of the absence of human bone are unnecessary.

Interpretations of Bronze Age burial practices on Bahrain have frequently focused upon the number of empty tombs. Two opposing views have arisen: one that ’empty’ tombs are a cultural artefact; the other, that ’empty’ tombs are a result of preservation and excavation processes. Chambers from which skeletal remains were not recovered have been interpreted as ‘commemorative tombs’ for expatri- ate Dilmunites or ’commemorative and/or ac- tual burials of Sumerians’ (I). More recently, given the lack of evidence for secondary burials, Salles has suggested that empty tombs be interpreted in the light of an entrepreneurial society (2).

The insights provided by these analyses are useful in interpreting Bahrain burial practices. Lamberg-Karlovsky’s insistence on examining the nature of social stratification and Salles’ suggestion of parallels with entrepreneurial societies are both steps forward in the interpretation of mortuary rituals. Yet their central premise of deliberately empty tombs has been accepted without any consideration of the normal processes of decay and destruction.

The ’empty tombs’ hypothesis has been argued against by several authors. Alster (3), in an examination of Mesopotamian religious texts, notes the incompatibility of these texts with the notion of bodies being shipped to Bahrain or of symbolic burial on Bahrain, two notions proposed by Lamberg-Karlovsky (4). Fr~hlich (5) argues that, on the basis of the number of burials, the number of mounds visible on Bahrain is compatible with estimates of the number of purely indigenous burials. It is therefore unnecessary, he claims, to invoke a notion of symbolic burial of foreigners to explain the number of tombs. He suggests, although he does not argue further, that the number of empty tombs is the result of poor preservation. Mughal (6) also argues that the number of empty tombs at Saar is the result of animal depredation, although he fails to present any convincing evidence.

It will be argued in this article that the percentage of tombs without human skeletal remains is the result of degradation of these remains over time and that it is unnecessary to use cultural explanations for what is basic-

5

J. LITTLETON

ally a taphonomic issue. The results of a recent excavation of a burial mound in Bahrain which contained graves of both Early Dilmun ( ~ 2 1 0 0 BC-1750 BC) and Tylos (300 BC-200 AD) type clearly support the attribution of empty tombs to poor preservation (7).

Preservation Before analysing the recent excavation results, the factors involved in the preservation of human skeletal material need to be explained. Whether or not human skeletal remains will be recovered from an excavated grave depends upon: I. treatment of the body before death; 2 . the method of burial; 3. decomposition of the body; 4. chemical action upon bone; 5 . mechanical action upon bone; 6. disturbance of the body; and 7. excavation and post-excavation activities. It is the interaction of all these factors that finally determines what the archaeologist or anthropologist uses as a basis for analysis. As Von Endt and Ortner point out:

The tissue is chemically active during life, and after death continues to be reactive in re- sponse to extrinsic and intrinsic conditions as both the protein and mineral phases of the bone, as well as the association between the two components, begins to break down, poten- tially resulting in complete dissolution of the tissue [Ital. author’s own] (8).

Pre-interment The pre-interment phase is the most difficult to reconstruct from the archaeological record; yet the way in which the body is handled before burial has a profound effect upon what is finally recovered. Before the final inhumation, bodies are frequently subjected to several processes from simple washing and dressing (in many modem societies), to more elaborate embalming, to exposure, cremation

or temporary interment (9). Each of these actions has an effect on the rate of decomposition of the body, the degree of articulation of the body, and whether all body parts are present. For example, a prolonged period between death and burial speeds the process of decomposition; a body exposed to the air, in general, putrefies more quickly than one which has been quickly buried (10).

In the majority of Bahrain burials, it is not apparent that the body has been subject to pre-burial rituals which affect preservation. The articulation of the bodies suggests that only a short period has elapsed between death and burial. One possible area of pre-burial ritu- al is whether some Iron Age burials represent primary or secondary interments. In particular circumstances it is difficult to distinguish between a tomb used more than once or one used for a mass burial of previously exposed bodies (11). Exposure of the body before burial may increase the rate of decomposition, and result in bone breakage and loss of small bones. These conditions do not, however, ap- ply to either the Dilmun or Tylos period skeletons from Bahrain.

Burial The method of burial is rather more important. Wrapping a body in clothing significantly slows decomposition. Clothing appears to protect against insects and absorbs moisture which promotes the formation of adipocere (10).

A1 ternatively, burial within a coffin, particularly if the coffin is not tightly closed, will has- ten putrefaction since the decay of the wood causes an increase in temperature, which significantly speeds decomposition (12). In extremely dry and well-sealed tombs decomposition may be slowed to such an extent that des- iccation will occur (13). One Tylos-period tomb from DS3 exemplifies the delay of decomposition: when the tomb was opened the remains of a wooden coffin were clearly visible, cloth was still wrapped around the body, and

6

TAPHONOMY OF BURIALS O N BAHRAIN

dehydrated soft tissue was found. This tomb, however, remains an exception. It was particularly well constructed and sealed with plaster and was also located towards the middle of a mound. Therefore it was neither close to the bedrock where the soil is moister, nor near the top where it would be susceptible to rain and robber damage. Nevertheless, the collapse of the wooden coffin onto the skeleton had re- sulted in some breakage of the bone.

There is no evidence to indicate whether Bronze Age individuals were buried clothed or unclothed. There is also no evidence for the use of coffins. Indeed the semi-flexed posi- tion of the skeletons would argue against coffins. In the Tylos period, however, either coffins or supporting boards were used in some, though probably not all, burials (14). The increased heat from the wood, particularly from any sawdust, would speed decay. If a body was clothed, then decay may have been slowed. More importantly though, coffin collapse can contribute to bone breakage, while clothing can hinder bone dispersal and disar- ticulation.

Decomposif ion The nature of the burial interacts with intrinsic aspects of the body. Soft tissue breakdown depends upon the size of the body and the amount of fat. For example, an emaciated body will skeletonize very quickly (15). In the case of Bahrain, the rate of soft tissue decomposition is rather less important than the preservation of bone. Yet whether or not bone is preserved is affected by the size and shape of the individual bones, the density of the bone, and the personal age and health of the individual (16). Bones of the elderly and infants tend to be less well-preserved because the bones are less dense and, in the case of infants, much smaller.

Chemical and mechanical factovs Chemical and mechanical action further affects decay, initially of the soft tissue and then of

the bone. These actions are determined by the environment of the grave: water, soil, temperature and amount of oxygen, as well as the local flora and fauna.

Of these factors, water is the single most important since it leaches bone, weakening the inorganic matrix. Minerals and water from the surrounding substrate and rain substitute into the crystalline structure of the bone; this serves to weaken the protein-mineral and col- lagen-apatite bonds (17).

A comparison of the state of preservation with different soil conditions at Sewerby, an Anglo-Saxon cemetery, demonstrates the effects of burial environment:

"Not surprisingly the worst preserved [graves] are those which are so shallow they do not penetrate the subsoil. Only slightly better are those dug in sand, while the best preserved are those in gravel ..." (18).

The author attributes this variation to drainage factors.

Acidic soil, excess salinity and loose soil will all increase decay rates through the increase in chemical interactions between the protein-mineral bond of the bone (19).

Similarly, for every 10°C increase in temperature, the rate of chemical reactions of decay is doubled. With higher temperatures the rate of hydrolysis and other chemical reactions is increased and the bone destruction becomes even faster (20).

In Bahrain, environmental conditions vary between sites and types of burial, although the overall high temperatures tend to speed decay. I t has been noted that large mammals buried at the Al-Areen wildlife reserve have completely decomposed within six months (21).

Rock-cut tombs are least suitable for the preservation of bone. These tombs are cut into the limestone bedrock and collect water during the brief periods of rain each year. This water cannot drain away and as a result, the

7

J. LITTLETON

graves tend to remain wet for long periods of time, weakening the bone and gradually dissolving both the inorganic and organic matrix. The presence of water also speeds the transfer of carbonate between the bedrock and the bone itself, so that eventually the inorganic matrix of the bone becomes replaced with carbonate crystal. As this crystal grows, it begins to fracture the rest of the bone. The same thing happens to the teeth, resulting in fractures of the crown along the cuspal lines.

In the burial moundfields of Saar and Ham- ad Town, the Early Dilmun tombs, while generally not constructed out of bedrock, are also susceptible to water damage. Although most of the year is dry, there are periods of rain in November and February. The amount of rain- fall is variable, but frequently rain falls within a short intense period. The shallow depth of soil means that drainage is poor and the period of drying prolonged. This was amply demonstrated during Hamad Town excavations in 1982 when, following two days of intense rain, work on the site had to be stopped for approximately one month. Even after four weeks the lowest levels of burial chambers were still wet, with the bone corre- spondingly wet and crumbly. Tylos tombs which are generally above ground tend to fare better although the formation of salt crusts has occurred in some, owing to the chemical effect of moisture on lime plaster.

Mechanical damage is caused primarily by local flora and fauna. Roots may grow through bones weakening them structurally, while animals, from ants to small mammals, may nest among bones, chew upon them, dis- turb them and generally accelerate decay. This evidence is not necessarily visible to the naked eye. Studies of bone microstructure have re- vealed that the growth of bacteria seriously affects the bone’s integrity, weakening the structure as a whole and making microstruc- tural studies more difficult (22).

The effects of flora and fauna on burials on Bahrain are often not very obvious. In cem-

eteries located in the more arable areas of the Island (e.g. Karannah North, Janussan), however, roots may cause major damage to bone. Their effects are generally seen in longitudinal cracking of bone as the root grows down the medullary cavity with small roots pushing through areas of weakness in the cortical bone.

The presence of animals is seen macro- scopically in two ways: small circular bore holes through bone, particularly through ver- tebral bodies; and teeth marks upon bones, often associated with dispersed remains. This second evidence is rarely seen, although in two tombs from Karannah Mound 1 the bones of small mammals, generally rodents, were found, suggesting that small animals had en- tered the chamber, possibly nesting there. In- trusive animal bones were even more common among Tylos-period graves at Abu Saybi, excavated by SalIes and co-workers: eight of 44 graves contained animal bones (23).

Disturbance of the bones The greatest disturbance of all is caused by human activity. Humans, after all, tend to be the largest mammals with any interest in burials. Reuse of chambers and robbery is frequently accompanied by some destruction of the human bone.

The Bahrain tombs provide some of the best evidence known for the effects of robbery and reuse upon bone. The degree of destruction is determined by several factors: how decomposed the body is at the time, the chamber dimensions (some Tylos tombs, for instance, are so small that there is no room for a person, however careful, to have avoided stepping on bone); chamber covering (capstones destroyed by robbers often fall in, to crush the bones beneath); the amount of silting in a chamber before disturbance (a level of soil will often protect bones during robbery or reuse); and simply the attitudes of those who have dis- turbed the burial: whether they throw bone outside the chamber; whether they carefully

8

TAPHONOMY OF BURIALS ON BAHRAIN

collect or push bone out of the way; whether they are very specific in what they wish to steal; and finally whether they are concerned to cover the evidence.

The effect of this disturbance can be clearly evaluated in some Tylos chambers. Karannah Mound 1 yielded eight reused tombs (~25%). In Tomb D-IV-3, which had been used at least six times, the lowest skeleton was badly dis- turbed and in poor preservation. It was covered by a fully articulated body in a good state of preservation. In this tomb bodies covered with a protective five centimetres of sand before reuse were in much better con- dition than others where there was very little evidence of a layer between the two burials.

Also at Karannah Mound 1, it is obvious that in some cases robbery took place only a short time after burial (24). In these cases disturbance of the skeleton is minimal, being restricted to the neck area, possibly involving either the mandible or the ribs. Given this lack of disturbance, it is probable that disarticu- Iation of the ligaments was not complete.

Excavation and post-recovey Excavation is the final action which determines whether or not bones are preserved. When bones are very decayed and disarticu- lated, they become extremely difficult to dis- cern amongst chamber fill. In addition, time constraints sometimes mean that chambers are not given time to dry before being excavated. Fragments of bone may be recovered but further disintegrate in plastic bags on their way to storage. As was recently pointed out, the loss of information from human skeletons recorded in situ in relation to the same skeletons recorded in the museum was around 50 percent (25). This information was lost due to breakage as bones were removed from the graves and moved to the museum.

Several techniques substantially improve preservation. Sieving of the chamber fill by workers trained to recognize bone and teeth results in much greater rates of recovery. Simi-

larly, excavating a chamber by means of 10 cm spits ensures that bone is more readily recovered. Even simple things such as double bagging and double labelling mean that bone in the museum stores is identifiable.

Given all the factors involved in the preservation and recovery of bone from burial chambers, it is rather less than surprising that in some cases no human bones were found in tombs from Bahrain. It is possible, however, keeping the above factors in mind, to examine the rate of bone recovery among Bahrain tombs and the pattern of bone preserved, and analyse whether in fact these reflect a pattern of poor preservation rather than a highly unusual burial practice.

Bahrain burials evaluated The percentage of empfy fombs The number of 'empty tombs' at any one site is highly variable. Table 1 gives an indication of the number of empty tombs at a variety of sites. It should be noted that there are highly variable rates even within the same site. This

Table 1. Preservation rates on Bahrain Island %with No. of

Site (references) bone tombs Dilmun: Various sites (38) 61.8 34 Various Sites (39) 60.0 30

Hamad Town-Early Type 1982 (41) 68.0 19 Saar El-Jisr-Late Type (42) 82.6 155 Saar Burial Complex (43) 25.3 150

Hamad Town-Late Type 1983 (45) 90.0 55 Karannah Mound 1-Late Type (46) 79.0 38

Average: 62.6 492

Umm-Jidr (40) 85.7 7

Hamad Town-Early Type 1983 (44) 100.0 4

Tylos: Abu Saybi (47) 67.7 65 DS3 (48) 77.5 292 Saar Mound 5 (49) 74.5 106 Karannah Mound 1 (50) 96.0 40"

Average: 77.5 503

*Chambers with some vestiges of walls.

9

J. LITTLETON

is a reflection both of site destruction before excavation and of archaeological techniques. In general, there is a lower frequency of empty tombs among Tylos cemeteries than among Dilniun burials, reflecting the effect of both different tomb construction (as mentioned above) and the 2000 years difference in age. Nevertheless, 96 percent of Tylos tombs with any vestiges of walls at Karannah Mound I contained skeletal remains, while 79 percent of the rock-cut Bronze Age tombs contained skeletal material despite the unfavourable conditions for preservation (26). Similarly, the In- dian team at Hamad Town recovered bone from 79 percent of the excavated chambers (27), while Lowe reported 90 percent preservation from Dilmun mounds at Hamad Town (28). The variability apparent in Table 1 is a combination of environmental factors and recovery, but in the case of tombs in similar environments, I agree with other anthropol- ogists that 'excavation techniques above all else determine the type of sample that reaches the human biologist' (29).

A continual emphasis on the recovery of bone by field staff, careful sieving by work- men who are taught how to recognise bone and teeth fragments, and simply allowing suf- ficient time for excavation and recovery are all major factors in successfully excavating bone. I t is also suspected that wet sieving, which has never been conducted in burial excavations on Bahrain, would be even more effective.

Table 2. Preservation of skeletal remains in other cemeteries

Comparative frequencies of empty tombs There are very few cemeteries where it is possible to determine the exact frequency of cases where bones have completely decayed. In many instances there are not built tombs but rather indistinct pits. The frequency of empty tombs on Bahrain has therefore been seen as something highly unusual. In fact, it only requires a quick survey of the literature to realize that for the time periods we are discussing, the frequency with which human bones are recovered on Bahrain is good, particularly in the Middle East where tradition- ally human bones have been regarded as less significant than material remains.

A survey of cemetery excavation reports held in the Australian National University Li- brary demonstrates that the rates of recovery from Bahrain tombs are not unusual. Table 2 presents comparative skeleton frequencies from a number of cemeteries. There are, however, few cemeteries that match the precise conditions of Bahrain, i.e. cist or above- ground structures. For instance, at Abu Sala- bikh, tombs were only identified as a grave if human bones were present; the purpose of other accumulations of pottery in pits was not identified (30).

The percentage of skeletons found within cemeteries varies from 0 to 75 percent of the expected maximum, with an average recovery of 69.5 percent, halfway between the Bahrain recovery rates for Dilmun and Tylos tombs. Older cemeteries are linked to lower recovery

% with No. of Site (reference) Period bone tombs

Queen Alia Airport, Jordan (51) Roman 74.7 174 Mezad Aluf, Negev (52) Chalcolithic 50.0 14 Al-Ubaid, Iraq (53) EDII-EDIII 61.9 92 Frenouville, France (54) 3rd-7th C. A.D. 75.8 650 Kalorizki, Greece ( 5 5 ) Iron Age 75 .O 28 Cyclades, Greece (56) Early Bronze Age 28.2 103

10

TAPHONOMY OF BURIALS ON BAHRAIN

rates. Comparison of other reports also indi- cates the common occurrence of very poorly preserved skeletons or none at all:

Here [at Ketzendorfl in a large 553-grave cemetery, only 38% of the burials were preserved well enough for age and sex determination to be made (31). Bone did not survive in these graves except as stains (32). Most individuals are represented by approximately 30% of the total number of bones (33).

Given that rates of preservation in Bahrain cemeteries generally exceed 50 percent of the expected number of skeletons, the number of empty tombs is entirely explicable in the context of preservation and excavation factors.

The level of preservation In order to test further whether decay and preservation processes were responsible for these empty tombs, the finds from the excavation of Karannah Mound I were graded according to preservation. Each tomb was cat- egorized according to the following schema:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Bone preservation Excellent, well-preserved skeleton 75 +%

. .

present, may be aged and sexed. Good, 50-75% of bones present, may be aged or sexed; Fair preservation: 25-50% of skeleton present, may not necessarily be able to age or sex but can distinguish between subadult and adult: Poor, 5-2570 of the skeleton, identifiable fragments, and the skeleton can be categor- ized as subadult or adult. Fragments, generally of long bone, less than 5% of the skeleton, no recognisable individual bones, can generally only be identified as human.

2. 51-75%: 3. 26-50°/0; 4. 11-25%; 5. less than 10%; 6. no teeth.

Table 3 compares the Dilmun and Tylos tombs from Mound 1. What is immediately obvious is that the most common degree of preservation for Dilmun tombs is (5): fragments, recognizable as human, compared to Tylos, which is (4): poor but generally recognizable as adult or subadult. The shift in the degree of preservation is due to the difference of 2000 years. Over time, not only do recovery rates become poorer, but the quality of bone which can be recovered also worsens.

The same pattern occurs with dental fragments. Recovery rates of teeth are low despite the fact that tooth enamel is stronger than bone. This may be accounted for by the effect of ground salts which literally explode the teeth crowns and the difficulty of distinguish-

Tuble 3. Degree of bone preservation Degree of bone Dilmun Tylos preservation tombs tombs Karannah Mound 1 1. Excellent 0 6 2. Good 1 6 3. Fair 2 9 4. Poor 6 13 5. Fragments only 7 5 6. Empty 8 1 Total 24* 40"*

Degree of teeth Dilmun Hellenistic ureservation tombs tombs Karannah Mound 1 1. 76-100% 0 3 2. 51-75% 2 5 3. 26-50% 0 7 4. 11-25% 0 7 5. < 10% 9 13 6. None 27 5 Total 38 40

Tee fh preserva fion I. 76-100% of all teeth or tooth sockets:

* Not including multiple tombs. lr Chambers with vestiges of walls.

17

J. LITTLETON

ing small fragments of enamel among limestone chips.

What needs to be remembered is that the process of decay is continual; with increased age the degree of preservation worsens.

The pattern of preservation At the same time, once the particular conditions of a site are known, the pattern of bone which is recovered becomes, to some extent, highly predictable. This pattern then determines what types of analysis can be conducted (34). Among the bones from Mound I, Karannah, the long bone shafts, ribs, thoracic vertebrae, carpals, metacarpals, phalanges, and metatarsals are most frequently represented (Table 4).

Ribs, thoracic vertebrae, and phalanges are most frequently represented for several rea- sons. First, this figure is a count of simple presence or absence within a tomb. Since there are 24 ribs, 12 thoracic vertebrae and 56 phalanges, the chances of these bones being found in a tomb are greater than for other bones. Long bone shafts, on the other hand, are among the most robust bones in the body. While in dry conditions the heads of long bones may be more commonly preserved, in a site like Karannah Mound 1 where there has been some crushing of the bone combined with water damage, the cancellous bone tends to become very wet and sodden, gradually losing form as both the organic and inorganic matrices are dissolved. The heavy cortical bone of the shafts tends to survive much better, as do short, sturdy, flat bones, for instance the sciatic notch and the metatarsals. Apart from the advantages of shape, these bones are less porous and therefore less subject to the infiltration of water.

In graves such as the Iron Age tomb at Aali where, while the tomb had been dry, the bone was subject to breakage due to reuse of the tomb, robust bones such as the femur head and temporal bone are well-represented. The pattern of bones recovered, therefore, is in-

Table 4. Differential preservation of skeletons (Mound 1, Karranah) Bone % of tombs" Number*" Cranial bones: Occipital Parietal Frontal Temporal Maxilla Malar Basicranium Mandible Teeth Torso: Scapula Clavicle Ribs Sternum Innominate Vertebrae: Cervical Thoracic Lumbar Sac c r a 1 Arm: Humerus Radius Ulna Carpal Metacarpal Phalange Leg: Femur Patella Tibia Fibula Talus Calcaneus Tarsal Metatarsal Phalanee

39 32 29 20 29 12 22 39 63

32 29 61 24 32

46 56 44 29

46 39 44 59 56 71

41 20 41 46 46 29 27 51 61

16 13 12

8 12 5 9

16 26

13 12 25 10 13

19 23 18 12

19 16 I8 24 23 29

17 8

17 19 19 12 11 21 25

~ ~ ~

* Based on presence absence in tombs; ** Number of Tylos tombs with vestiges of walls=41.

dicative of the nature of burial and reflects the effect of differential preservation.

Conclusion The pattern of human bones recovered from Bahrain tombs is consistent with a natural pat-

12

TAPHONOMY OF BURIALS O N BAHRAIN

tern of preservation and decay. The frequency of empty tombs varies according to age of the deposit, location and excavator. The quality of bone also varies according to age, while the pattern of bone recovered is consistent with different environmental conditions in particular tombs. The percentage of tombs with bones is comparable to or greater than cemeteries in other localities, indicating that it is unnecessary to consider anything but taphonomy as an explanation for the lack of human skeletal remains.

Given the unusual nature of the Bahrain tombs and their extreme visibility, it is hardly surprising that archaeologists have been tempted to construct elaborate interpretations of burial practices. These analyses, however, need to incorporate a notion of taphonomic processes and, particularly, the realization that the process of decay is a continuous one and that bone, in time and under particular conditions, does deteriorate entirely. In Bahrain, the only ‘empty tombs‘ that need to be explained in anything other than taphonomic terms are those where animal bones have been preserved but there is no evidence at all of human bone ( 3 3 , and before any more analysis of cultural artefacts is conducted it would be worthwhile examining whether this phenom- ena does not also have a taphonomic cause.

Overall this whole debate should be seen in the light of a cautionary tale. As one physical anthropologist has pointed out ’there is a lot of interpretative nonsense written about human remains, and there is a need to err con- stantly on the side of caution’ (36) .

”A materialist approach to these burials, whether by archaeology, demography or a study of wealth and resource distribution in the tombs, fails entirely to comprehend the cogni- tive element of meaning in terms of concepts, symbolic principles and ideologies” (3 7).

Yet interpretation of the symbolic needs to be based on recognition of the context and na-

It may be that:

ture of archaeological deposits and their excavation. What an archaeologist recovers in a cemetery is the result of four stages: pre-interment, interment, post-interment and excavation. The effect of each of these stages should be considered in any analysis of burial practices. If these stages are recognised and analysed, then perhaps burial analysis on Bah- rain can move onwards from what has become an increasingly arid debate.

Acknowledgements Thanks go to Wendy Cosford, Peter Dowling, Bruno Frohlich and Sue Smalldon for their comments and sug- gestions on this manuscript.

References 1. Lamberg-Karlovsky CC. Death in Dilmun. BTAA

162. See also Lamberg-Karlovsky CC. Dilmun, Gate- way to immortality. ]NES 41: 1982: 45-50.

2. Salles J-F. Funerary customs and social organisation: a tentative interpretation of the Bahrain evidence. Paper presented at Anfhropologique et Archlologie Fu- ntraires sur la rive arabe du Golfe, Zer-1er millenaires av. J.-C. Lyons, 1990 (Lyons, 1990).

3. Alster B. Dilmun, Bahrain and the alleged paradise myth. In: Potts D, ed. Dilmun: new sfudies in the archaeology and early history of Bahrain. BBVO: Berlin, 2: 1983: 39.

4. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Death in Dilmun. 5. Frohlich B. The human biological history of the

Early Bronze Age population in Bahrain. B T M 47. 6. Mughal R. The Dilmun burial complex at Saar: The

1980-1982 excavations in Bahrain. Bahrain: Ministry of Information, 1983.

7. For a general description of the excavation, see Her- ling A, Latzell M, Littleton J, Mdering I, Schipmann K & Velde C. Preliminary report of the excavation of Karannah Mound 1. Unpub. report of the German Archaeological Mission to Bahrain, 1993.

8. Von Endt D & Ortner D. Experimental effects of bone size on bone diagenesis. Journal of Archaeologi- cal Science 11: 1984: 247.

9. Huntington R & Metcalf P. Celebrations of death. Cambridge: CUP, 1979.

10. Mant A. Knowledge acquired from post-War exhu- mations. In: Boddington A, Garland A & Janaway R, eds. Death, decay and reconstruction, approaches fo archaeology and ,forensic science. Manchester: Manche- ster University Press, 1987: 65.

11. Chamber 1, Aali Mound, excavated in 1982 may

13

J. LITTLETON

represent a secondary burial of pproximately 120 individuals. It is, however, the opinion of this author that the chamber was used successively for primary burials.

12. Garland N & Janaway R. The taphonomy of inhumation burials. In: Roberts C, Lee F & Bintliff J, eds. Burial archaeology. Current research, methods and development. Oxford: BAR, 1989: 15. Also Mant, Knowledge acquired.

13. Cockburn A & Cockburn E, eds. Mummies, diseuse and ancient culture. Cambridge: CUP, 1980.

14. Herling A. Hellenistic burial customs at Karannah. Paper presented at Lyons, 1990; Littleton J. DS3: Yet another Hellenistic Cemetery from Bahrain. Paper presented at Lyons, 1990.

15. Mant, Knowledge acquired. 16. Henderson J . Factors determining the state of preser-

vation of human remains. In: Boddington A, et al. Death, decay and reconstruction: 43; Von Endt D & Ortner D, Bone diagenesis; Waldron T. The relative survival of the human skeleton: implications for pala- eopathology. In: Boddington et al. Death, decay und reconstruction: 35.

17. Von Endt & Ortner, Bone diagenesis. 18. Hirst S. Some aspects of the analysis and publication

of an inhumation cemetery. In: Rahtz P, Dickinson T, Watts L, eds. Anglo-Saxon cemeteries 1979. Oxford: BAR, 1980: 239.

19. Garland N, Janaway R. The taphonomy of inhumation burials. In: Roberts C, et al. Burial archaeology: 15.

20. Von Endt & Ortner, Bone diagenesis. 21. Savour J, Al-Areen Wildlife Park, pers.comm. 22. Piepenbrink H. Two examples of biogenous dead

bone decomposition and their consequences for taphonomic interpretation. Journul of Archaeological Science 13: 1986: 417; Rodriguez W & Bass W. Insect activity and its relationship to decay rates of human cadavers in East Tennessee. Journal of Forensic Sciences 28(2): 1983: 423; Rodriguez W & Bass W. De- composition of buried bodies and methods that may aid in their location. Journal of Forensic Sciences 30: 1985: 836.

23. Based on field notes, courtesy of J-F Salles; Littleton J. Human skeletons from the French excavation of Abu Saybi. Report in prep, n.d.

24. Littleton J. The human remains from Karannah Mound 1: Preliminary Report. German archaeological mission to Bahrain, Unpubd. report, 1993.

25. Littleton, DS3: Yet another Hellenistic cemetery. 26. Littleton, Karannah Mound 1. 27. Srivasta K. Madinat Hamad Burial Mounds 1984-85.

28. Lowe A. Bronze Age burial mounds from Bahrain.

29. Henderson, Factors affecting preservation: 53.

Bahrain: Ministry of Information, 1991.

Iraq 48: 1986: 73.

30. Martin H, Moon J & Postgate J. A b u Salabikh excavations, ii. Hertford: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, 1985.

31. Hirst S. Some aspects of the analysis and publication of an inhumation cemetery. In: Rahtz P, et al. Anglo- Saxon cemeteries 241.

32. Jarvis K. An Anglo-Saxon cemetery at Bargates, Christchurch, Dorset. In: Rahtz P, et al. Anglo-Saxon cemeteries 307.

33. Frahlich B. The human skeletons. In: Ibrahim M & Gordon R. A cemetery at Queen Alia lnternational Airport. Weisbaden: Harrasowitz, 1987: 56.

34. Waldron, Relative bone survival. 35. Frahlich, Human biological history. 36. Brothwell D. Disordered bones: the skeletons from

Jewbury. In: Boddington A, et al. Death, decay and reconstruction: 22.

37. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Death in Dilmun: 163. 38. Mackay E, Harding LK & Petrie F. Bahrain and Hema-

mieh. London: British School of Archaeology in Egypt, 47: 1929.

39. Cornwall P. The tumuli of Bahrain. Asia and the Americas 43: 1943: 230.

40. Cleuziou S, Lombard P & Salles J-F. Fouilles ir U m m Jidr (Bahrain). Paris: Editions ADPF, 1982.

41. Brown E, Littleton J & Stocks R. Eighteen burial mounds at the new city site, 1982. Unpubd. report, Directorate of Archaeology, Bahrain, 1982.

42. Ibrahim M. Excavations ut Sur el-Jisl; Bahrain. Bahrain: Ministry of Information, 1982.

43. Mughal, Burial complex. 44. Littleton J. Four burial mounds from Hamad Town.

Unpubd. report, Directorate of Archaeology, 1983. 45. Lowe, Bronze Age burial mounds. 46. Herling et a]., Karannah Mound 1. 47. Salles J-F. Abu Saybi Field Notes. Unpubd. notes. 48. Littleton J. Articulating the past: an osteosocial analysis.

PhD thesis submitted to the Australian National University, 1993.

49. Littleton, Articulating the past. 50. Herjling et al., Karannah Mound 1. 51. Ibrahim & Gordon. A cemetey at Queen Alia Interna-

tional Airport. 52. Levy T & Alon D. The chalcolithic mortuary site

near Mezad Aluf, Northern Negev Desert: 3rd Pre- liminary Report. B A S O R Supplement 23: 1985: 121.

53. Hall H & Woolley L. U r Excavations Volume 7: Al’U- baid. Oxford: OUP, 1927.

54. Pilet C. La Necropole de Frenouville. Oxford: BAR, 1983.

55. Benson J. The Necropolis of Kalorizki. Lund: Studies in Mediterranean archaeology, 1973.

56. Doumas C. Early Bronze Age burial habits in the Cycla- des. Lund: Studies in Mediterranean archaeology, 1977.

14

empty tombs? the taphonomy of burials on bahrain

Documents