Burial Location, Typology, Orientation and Body Arrangement

Chapter 3 Burial Location, Typology, Orientation and Body Arrangement

With the rare exceptions of a few child cremations at Chogha Zanbil and a pos- sible secondary interment at Susa, the burials outlined in the previous chapter were almost exclusively single or multiple primary inhumations.1 It is unlikely that the data is distorted significantly by the predisposition of the archaeologi- cal record to evince disposal methods involving burial (versus exposure, water burial, etc.), since, as we will see in a later chapter (Chapter 6) on Elamite after- life beliefs, the placement of corpses below the ground was probably regarded as a necessary step to segregate the dead from the living and facilitate their entry into the netherworld. This use of primary inhumation necessitates the selection of a suitable location, burial type, cardinal orientation and corpse arrangement. Each of these aspects of Neo-Elamite burials will be examined below, accounting for any practical considerations that may have conditioned them.

3.1 Location

For archaeologists of Elam, it has been difficult to clarify the nature of the loca- tions that were used to bury the dead. Most believe that subfloor interment in private households was the norm, but in practice distinguishing between an interment below the floor and one in a cemetery is almost impossible due to the changing uses of urban space over time and the incoherence of the stratigra- phy, particularly for the earlier excavators who were unable to trace mudbrick architecture. In addition to these problems, any study of this aspect of mortu- ary practice must contemplate the heavy bias in favour of urban intramural

1 The cremation of adults is also attested at Chogha Zanbil in the preceding Middle Elamite period (Ghirshman 1968a: 63; Carter 2011: 56), but no cremation burials were ever recognised at Susa (Ghirshman 1962: 149). After many years of excavation at Susa, Mecquenem (1929–30: 87) would adopt the view that the burials are Susa were generally secondary; an idea evident- ly inspired by interpretations of the material by his assistant Dr. J.M. Unvala, a Zoroastrian priest deemed knowledgeable in such matters. For our period all of the evidence points to primary inhumation, even if human remains are not often in their original placement in the tomb chambers.

52 Chapter 3 burial practices resulting from the targeted excavation of settlement sites, with any evidence outside these zones only ever found by chance. The high number and density of burials that Mecquenem encountered in his cuts at Susa led him to believe that he was excavating large necropolis mounds: five in total, labelled A, B, C, D and E. It was in mounds B (under the Apadana palace), C (VR Sondage 1) and D (VR Sondage 2) that most of the Neo-Elamite burials were encountered (Mecquenem 1931b: 334; 1943–44: 133, Pl. i). Mecquenem (1943–44: 133) further believed that these cemeteries were arranged around temples or chapels that were built and rebuilt over long peri- ods of time; a hypothesis that would not be at odds with the evidence outlined later in this work for the involvement of religious institutions in elite funerary matters (see Chapter 6.5). Conversely, Roman Ghirshman (1962: 149; 1964: 7; 1968a: 7–8) was adamant that “before the arrival of the Iranians” the people of Elam “like the Babylonians and Assyrians” buried their dead below the floors of their houses. Despite his admission that there were no burials under the large Ville Royale houses he excavated, he continued to defend this view (Ghirshman and Steve 1966: 9–10; Ghirshman 1967: 12). Hermann Gasche and Steven W. Cole (2018: 741–43) have recently written in support of his identification of subfloor burials in the VR A, adding that there had been an increase of some 400% in their use between the mid-seventeenth and mid-fifteenth century. This they attributed to connec- tions with, and even arrivals of, populations of southern Mesopotamia. While Mecquenem’s conception of dedicated burial sites came to be dis- regarded in favour of subfloor burial,2 Mofidi-Nasrabadi (2012a: 262–63) has recently emphasised that no definite connection between burials and inhab- ited houses has actually ever been ascertained.3 In fact, the evidence to the contrary is more solid. In the lowlands the excavated burials are intramural, but at least some of them were non-residential (i.e. not buried within/below private houses). In the VR ii Miroschedji (1981a: 17) observed that levels 10 and 9 were separated in one area by a fairly thin, unoccupied layer (couche 18) which seemed to demonstrate a habitation break. The cutting of pit burial SuP10 from this layer into a wall of level 10, and the subsequent erection of an- other wall belonging to the level 9 directly over the top of it, hints at the use of disused areas for interments. Mecquenem’s (1924a: 4) statement that the four tombs SuC8-C11 were built on pristine earth on the southern edge of the VR

2 Especially subject to criticism was his interpretation of Necropolis B, the “Eastern Necropo- lis” to the east of Darius’ palace (e.g. Steve and Gasche 1996: 329–31, fn. 1; Carter 2011: 45). 3 A forthcoming study by Ali Zalaghi arrives at much the same conclusion, though the chrono- logical window of the study is limited to the second millennium.