Courtney Innes and Dr. Wilfred Griggs, Ancient Scripture

Introduction

Brief Introduction: Over the course of two days, February 17 and 18, the cluster burials 18, 19, 20, and 22 in the north-west area were uncovered from the square by the Egyptian workers and taken to the in-the-field lab station for analyses. Due to limited space, I will focus my attention on Burial 19. A brief conclusion will be presented following the analysis of the burial. The following accounts will describe and analyze the burials in detail:

130/140 North, 20/30 West, NW area, Burial 19

Site Description: About 81 cm below the surface, and directly below burial 18’s skull, and slightly shifted north, burial 19 was found in a better preserved status. The better preservation could be attributed to the fact that it was below burial 18 and the limestone in addition to the 11 layers of textile wrappings on burial 19. The better preservation was a minor defining factor between 18 and 19 because their matrices blended and were quite difficult to discern. The body was 196 cm east to head, 50 cm east to feet, 95 cm south to head, and 101 cm south to feet. The total length of the body was 165 cm and was also in a head-west positioning. Again, no artifacts were directly related to the body; although, burial 20 and 22 were located in association with burial 18 and 19. Burial 20 was placed on the chest of burial 18 while burial 22 was placed at the feet of burial 18 and 19.

Textile: As briefly noted above, there were 11 layers of textile wrapping with burial 19. The designs of the textile, simple 1 over 1 pattern with un-dyed linen and basket weave, were rotated between the layers. Furthermore, three of the 11 layers had rope and the common red-white pattern on the ribbons.

Osteology: Burial 19 was an adult female approximately 18-25 years of age, according to the osteological analyses. Gender was determined by analyzing the female-specific features on the skull, pelvis, and limb bones. All characteristics were clearly female, except for the fact that the parietal bossing wasn’t as pronounced as most females. Again, age was determined by observing the degree of the suture’s obliteration on the skull, looking at the degree of the epipyseal fusions on the humerus and femur, as well as assessing the dentition. The dentition, however, was the chief determining factor of the age as it was fairly prevalent that one of the wisdom teeth was coming in, which occurs around 18-25 years of age. Also, the excellent condition of the teeth testified that burial 19 was still quite young as wear on the teeth was absent. Following protocol, teeth and rib were taken for DNA sampling as well.

Conclusion

It has been proposed that burials 18, 19, 20, and 22 are that of a family since they were found together – and with the case of 18, 19, and 20 directly on top of each other. While this statement cannot be validated until DNA analyses are performed, their contact with one another seems intended, at least with 18, 19, and 20, since other burials have at least some distancing space.

Naturally, questions have been raised as to the cause of death for each of these individuals. While archaeology can certainly reveal data – it doesn’t always explain how or why – and we are left with little evidence to propose answers. Some have tried to associate these burials with that of an agricultural decline that occurred in the fayoum area. While this is certainly possible, it is difficult to pinpoint a time with these burials since pottery and other artifacts were not accounted for with this cluster burial. Additionally, if this was the case, and the family died together all at once – why put the mother on the bottom with the father on top? And why place burial 22 at the bottom of the burial when it is the infant? And why is the child burial so poorly preserved that it looks like a secondary burial?

The cause of death, to me, doesn’t appear to be that of an epidemic that wiped the family out all at once because the positioning, to me, tells otherwise. In fact, I think these individuals, whether family or not, may have died at different times. Attention needs to be paid to the positioning. It appears that the “mother” (burial 19) and child (burial 20) may have died at the same time for whatever reason and were buried together at the same time. The family may have lovingly placed the child on top of the “mother” even. However, later, the “father” (burial 18) died and relatives sought to place him in the same grave as his “wife” and child – the relatives located the spot, and took out the child on top of the “mother” since it is small and easy to move, and placed the child on top of the “father,” which explains the secondary-like positioning of the child and the reason why burial 19 is below burial 18. As for burial 22 – I don’t believe it is related to the others at all since it is rather far away from the other bodies, and it doesn’t make sense to leave a baby at a distance if the rest of the family is together. But again, no one really knows why so it is hard to say anything.

The head-west burials, the history of the site, and the shallow depths of the grave seem to indicate that these were Christian burials. However, this is not enough evidence to rely on alone. While there is evidence of palm tree branches with burial 18 – it seems to serve more of a practical purpose of lowering the body into the burial. Moreover, palm trees are very common in the region so it, again, appears to serve a functional purpose. It could reveal some ties to Christianity, but I don’t think much can be determined from the lack of evidence. Hopefully, with DNA analyses, pottery data, other artifacts, and future excavations, questions for other burials could better be explained and be supported by data.