From individualized mummies to collective accumulations: an archaeothanatological analysis of funerary reuse in Theban Tomb 209 (Twenty-Fifth Dynasty–Ptolemaic Egypt)

Abstract

Side Chamber 3 of Theban Tomb 209 (Luxor) preserves a stratified assemblage of 17 mummified bodies documented in primary or partially primary position, and a secondary deposit of at least 4 individuals dated between the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty and the Ptolemaic period. This study applies an integrated archaeothanatological approach—combining body position, coffin use, stratigraphic relationships, superposition, and material associations—to reconstruct the depositional sequence and assess how funerary reuse transformed the organization of the chamber. The earliest phases, probably associated with the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, are characterized by relatively individualized burials deposited in coffins and arranged in spatially distinct sectors. From the late Twenty-Fifth Dynasty onwards, this pattern becomes progressively more flexible, with new individuals inserted into already occupied spaces and directly interacting with earlier remains. During the Persian and Ptolemaic periods, this process intensifies, resulting in a dense and vertically structured accumulative system. This transformation does not imply a loss of funerary order, but rather a shift in depositional logic. The gradual dissolution of one-to-one relationships between body, coffin, and associated objects reflects the emergence of a sequential system in which each burial is conditioned by the material persistence of previous deposits. In this context, the coffin does not disappear but loses its primary structuring role, progressively replaced by a depositional topography defined by bodies, sedimentary surfaces, and architectural constraints. The presence of a thermally altered secondary deposit and evidence of hydrological reshaping further indicate that the chamber was continuously reconfigured, generating a complex context in which primary, secondary, and transformed deposits coexist.

1 Introduction

The reuse of tombs constitutes one of the most relevant processes in the formation of the funerary record of Thebes during the 1st millennium BCE. Many contexts have been showing that tombs did not function so much as closed spaces associated to a single depositional moment, but rather as structures open to successive reoccupations, internal reorganizations, and new depositions (Kaczanowicz, 2021; Lemos, 2025; Menozzi, 2021). In this way, the formation of palimpsests of materials and bodies from different chronologies, and the alteration of funerary associations should be understood as inherent characteristics of these contexts, and not so much as isolated phenomena.

For a long time, reuse tended to be explained mainly within frameworks of economic crisis or limitations in the construction of new tombs. However, current interpretations indicate that this is a more complex phenomenon in which transformations in funerary practices, changes in the material investment in bodies and monuments, as well as other diverse social dynamics are interwoven. Between the New Kingdom and the Libyan Period, for example, funerary practices were reconfigured in ways that affected the coffin production, decoration, and mummification. These changes may indicate the emergence of alternative funerary responses rather than a simple impoverishment of these procedures (Cooney, 2011). Within this framework, the use of pre-existing tombs is embedded as a long-term funerary logic that cannot be reduced to a single cause (Dodson and Ikram, 2008).

In the same way, this phenomenon of reuse implied important material transformations in funerary architecture. In different areas of the Theban necropolis, interventions such as the opening of new shafts, the enlargement of side chambers, the creation of secondary spaces, or the connection between structures that were independent in previous moments have been documented. These modifications altered the original internal organization of the monuments, generating new spatial configurations in which areas that were originally intended only for ritual or circulation functions became spaces of mortuary deposition (Menozzi, 2021). Consequently, reuse did not simply involve the addition of new burials, but also the redefinition of how funerary spaces were used and understood.

From an archaeological point of view, these processes resulted in deposits with a high taphonomic complexity. The presence of disarticulated, fragmented or reduced human remains, as well as the mixing of materials from different phases, can be interpreted as the superposition of multiple depositional episodes that also involved alterations and reorganizations. In this sense, fragmentation and reorganization should not be understood as opposite processes, but as dynamics that can coexist within the same funerary sequence (Lemos, 2025; Lemos et al., 2017). The incorporation of older materials into later contexts, as well as the direct interaction with previously deposited remains, suggests the possible existence of forms of material continuity and reactivation of the funerary space.

Within this framework, archaeothanatology provides a methodological approach especially suitable for the analysis of this type of complex deposits. This approach is based on the study of anatomical relationships, the position of the bodies, and their interaction with the funerary environment in order to reconstruct depositional conditions and the processes that occur afterwards (Duday, 2009). Thus, the persistence of articular connections, the arrangement of body segments, or the relationship with certain containers can allow us to distinguish between primary depositions, later alterations, or even sequences of reuse. Moreover, the recent development of this discipline insists on the need for a precise terminology in which taphonomic, spatial and bioarchaeological data are integrated in order to correctly interpret these processes (Knüsel et al., 2022; Schotsmans et al., 2022).

The usefulness of this approach is particularly evident in the study of multiple and sequential burials. In fact, it has been pointed out that these contexts should be analyzed not only by the number of individuals, but by the temporal relationship between depositions and their spatial organization. In sequential depositions, the insertion of new bodies can generate structures in which earlier individuals condition the arrangement of later burials (Miniaci, 2019). This type of depositional configuration could indicate that the funerary space functions as a dynamic entity in which each deposition transforms the relationships between bodies, objects and horizons.

Thus, the set of available evidence seems to indicate that the reuse of tombs in Thebes was a diachronic and heterogeneous process. During the Late Period and the Ptolemaic period, an intensification of funerary use has been observed in many contexts, with a greater density of depositions and a reorganization of space based on accumulation (Kaczanowicz, 2021; Menozzi, 2021). These processes could reflect changes in the size, density, and internal organization of funerary deposits, in the role of containers, and in the relationship between new burials and the material continuity of previous ones.

In this sense, despite the progress made in the study of tomb reuse in Thebes, there remains a gap in the archaeothanatological characterization of how these dynamics are materialized at the microstratigraphic scale within specific spaces, particularly regarding the transition from horizontally individualized depositions to dense, superimposed, and vertically structured funerary configurations. Most studies have approached reuse from architectural, typological, or broader interpretative perspectives, while the systematic integration of stratigraphic analysis, anatomical relationships, and spatial organization of the deposit remains limited. Building on this gap, the present study proposes to analyse a reused funerary context through an integrated archaeothanatological approach, with the working hypothesis that vertical accumulation and the progressive loss of the coffin as a structuring element reflect both an intensification in the use of space and a shift in the logic of funerary organization and in the material relationship with earlier burials. Accordingly, the aim is to reconstruct the depositional sequence and to evaluate how these transformations contribute to the configuration of a collective, accumulative, and diachronically structured funerary space.

1.1 Theban tomb 209: historical and archaeological context

Theban Tomb 209 (hereafter: TT 209) is located on the northern slope of the Wadi Hatasun, in the South Asasif sector within the Theban western necropolis. This topographic position has acted as a key structuring condition of the monument, since the tomb is inserted directly within an active drainage channel of the wadi. As a result, it has been recurrently exposed to episodes of flash flooding, with the consequent sediment transport, both in antiquity and during the 20th century (Molinero Polo and Soler Javaloyes, 2019). Therefore, the formation of the archaeological record of TT 209 must be understood as the product of a long-term interaction between funerary activity, flood-related sedimentation, and modern excavation history.

At the same time, the history of this funerary monument needs to be framed within the broader sociopolitical transformations that took place in Egypt during the first millennium BCE. The Libyan Period were characterized by the coexistence of multiple centres of power, increasing regional autonomy, and a reorganization of traditional funerary and cultic structures (Niwiński, 1995; Ritner, 2008). From the second half of the 8th century BCE onwards, the rise of Kushite power in Egypt and the establishment of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty marked a new phase of architectural activity and religious investment. This was especially visible in Thebes, where construction activities were reactivated and the role of certain religious institutions was reinforced (Arnold, 1999; Ayad, 2009).

Prosopographical and archaeological evidence produced by Project two zero nine places the tomb in the Kushite period, probably in the early phase of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty, and identifies its original owner as Nisemro, a high official of Nubian origin who must have been active in Thebes during this time (Molinero Polo, 2016; 2022). This attribution situates the monument within a moment when the Theban necropolis experienced both the intensive reuse of earlier funerary structures and the construction of new monumental tombs by elites linked to the new political-religious order (Arnold, 1999; Kaczanowicz, 2021). In this sense, TT 209 should be understood as part of a funerary landscape in transformation, marked by both the continuity of local practices and the incorporation of changes brought by these new actors.

Recent fieldwork has allowed a more detailed understanding of the architectural configuration of the monument, defining it as a highly monumental Kushite tomb organised through a mudbrick superstructure arranged in three terraces adapted to the steep slope of the Wadi Hatasun (Molinero Polo, 2022). The main façade would have been dominated by mudbrick pylons of nearly 17 m in length, with a doorway framed in limestone and sandstone and decorated with an elaborate programme, probably reaching a considerable height in comparison to other tombs in the Wadi Hatasun (Molinero Polo, 2022).

Within the courtyard, a ramp with a staircase leading to the underground chambers was documented, together with two rock-cut tree pits, a limestone pedestal belonging to an offering table, and a mudbrick pedestal attached to the rear wall. These elements were likely associated with funerary and commemorative rituals carried out in this part of the superstructure (Molinero Polo, 2022; Molinero Polo et al., 2017), a function further supported by the presence of bases of caliciform incense burners on the courtyard and middle terrace (Barahona Mendieta, 2017; Molinero Polo, 2022).

The underground chambers are organized along two main axes. The north–south axis comprises a sequence of cultic spaces, including the Transverse Hall and the Pillared Hall, followed by the main burial areas, with quadrangular chambers, shafts, and burial chambers. A clearly secondary east–west axis opens from the Transverse Hall and includes two antechambers and two quadrangular chambers with shafts and a lower burial level. Side Chamber 3 (hereafter SC3) belongs to this secondary axis and forms one of its terminal burial spaces.

Another relevant aspect of TT 209 is the convergence of Egyptian and Nubian funerary elements within an architecturally Theban framework. In the main burial chamber along the north–south axis, evidence has been identified and interpreted as the emplacement of a funerary bed of Nubian tradition. The rock-cut negatives used to fix its legs have been analyzed through photogrammetry and 3D modelling, pointing to the active integration of ritual practices associated with the Kushite tradition within the monument (Molinero Polo, 2022).

In any case, the history of the tomb does not end with its construction phase. As noted above, funerary reuse played a decisive role in the formation of the archaeological deposit, representing a long-term structural phenomenon linked to complex funerary strategies (Kaczanowicz, 2021; Lemos, 2025). In the case of TT 209, the subsequent sequence of use includes Persian and Ptolemaic phases (Carballo-Pérez and Molinero Polo, 2021), also reflected in the presence of large ceramic vessels from these periods in areas such as the Transverse and Pillared Halls (Molinero Polo, 2022).

Similarly, the environmental conditions documented inside the tomb confirm the importance of periodic inputs of water and sediments from the wadi in shaping the archaeological record. Microclimatic monitoring conducted within the tomb shows that the deeper chambers maintained, over long periods, relatively stable temperatures and high relative humidity, while modern reopenings and excavations noticeably modified this equilibrium (Molinero Polo and Soler Javaloyes, 2019).

Within this funerary framework, SC3 occupies a particularly significant position within the monument (Figure 1). Architecturally, it forms part of the lateral axis extending from the Transverse Hall, constituting the terminal space of a sequence composed of a corridor, an intermediate square room with a large shaft, and a final rectangular chamber measuring approximately 5.10 × 3.15 m. SC3 is connected to SC2 through a doorway and, as documented during excavation, also to SC4 via a second entrance on its northern wall. Its internal configuration includes a carved bedrock, with features such as an access step and a raised area, seemingly a pedestal in front of the northern doorway, possibly associated with ritual activity. Owing to its size, position, and depth within the underground chambers, SC3 stands out as one of the main secondary areas and a key space for understanding the long-term funerary reuse of TT 209.

Figure 1

Unlike other sectors of the monument, SC3 was not disturbed by early 20th-century interventions or later modern intrusions. This makes it an exceptional context for examining the interaction between funerary depositions and sedimentary flooding processes within the tomb (Carballo-Pérez and Molinero Polo, 2021), which, as noted above, cannot be separated from the funerary sequence itself (Molinero Polo and Soler Javaloyes, 2019). Furthermore, recent fieldwork has shown that the lateral chambers along this lateral axis preserve earlier and relatively better-preserved sequences of use than those along the main axis, precisely because they remained untouched by earlier excavations.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Archaeological ensemble of funerary deposits

The archaeological assemblage documented in SC3 of TT 209 is composed, on the one hand, of a total of 1,444 bones belonging to 16 human individuals identified in primary or partially primary depositional contexts, together with a mummified canid, and, on the other hand, of a thermally altered secondary deposit (SU 449 and dispersed through SU 367) containing 1,775 bone fragments corresponding to a minimum number of four additional individuals (MNI = 4), identified through osteological analysis. This high number refers to fragments, not complete bones, and results from intense post-depositional fragmentation.

Given the stratigraphic complexity and the characteristics of the archaeological space, the main unit of analysis adopted is the funerary deposit, following the methodological principles of archaeothanatology (Duday, 2009). Individuals are treated as analytical subunits when they show anatomical coherence, spatial delimitation, and stratigraphic relationships that allow their identification as discrete entities.

2.2 Archaeothanatological and osteological approach

The study has been carried out through an archaeothanatological approach, understood as the integrated analysis of the spatial arrangement of human remains, their anatomical relationships, their stratigraphic context, and the taphonomic processes affecting them, with the aim of reconstructing the dynamics of deposition and transformation of the funerary space (Boulestin and Duday, 2006; Duday, 2009; Duday et al., 1990). This approach is particularly suitable in contexts characterized by successive depositions and complex alterations, where interpretation largely depends on the quality of field recording and its integration with subsequent osteological analysis (Crevecoeur et al., 2015).

The excavation was conducted following a microstratigraphic protocol, understood here as the excavation and recording of small-scale stratigraphic changes within the funerary deposit, including sediment texture, interfaces, body position, anatomical relationships, associated materials, and the successive exposure of remains before removal. Special attention was given to the detailed recording of stratigraphic units and human remains. After the initial exposure of skeletal elements an their associated fabrics (e.g., wrappings), the sediment matrix was progressively removed in order to expose as much surface as possible without altering their original position. Once the wrappings mixed with the sediment were documented, and due to their poor preservation, they were micro-excavated to fully expose the skeletal elements. A complete recording of the funerary deposit was then carried out prior to its removal, repeating this procedure at each stage of cleaning, following standard archaeothanatological field principles (Crevecoeur et al., 2015; Duday, 2009).

Each phase was documented through systematic digital photography and planimetry produced using photogrammetry and total station, with images taken at every level of remains, including scale, orientation, and reference points. At the same time, sketches and stratigraphic descriptions were produced, recording the position, orientation, and state of preservation of the remains, as well as their relationship with the sediment and funerary structures.

Variables related to body arrangement (orientation, limb position), the presence or absence of anatomical connections, and the relationship between human remains and their immediate context were systematically recorded. Following the archaeothanatological approach, all deviations from the expected anatomical arrangement were documented without initial interpretative attribution, allowing for later evaluation in relation to taphonomic processes or anthropogenic interventions (Duday, 2009; Duday and Guillon, 2006).

The identification of burials was based on standard archaeothanatological criteria: (1) presence of total or partial anatomical articulation; (2) recognisable delimitation of the body; (3) coherence in anatomical position; and (4) defined stratigraphic relationships (Duday, 2009).

The osteological analysis of individuals in primary position was carried out through macroscopic examination of their skeletal remains. Sex estimation was based on morphognostic criteria of the skull and pelvis following Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994), complemented in ambiguous cases with additional comparative standards. Age estimation was approached through a combined strategy: in adults, using the morphology of the pubic symphysis (Brooks and Suchey, 1990) and the auricular surface (Lovejoy et al., 1985), with cranial sutures as a complementary indicator (Meindl and Lovejoy, 1985); in subadults, through dental development and skeletal maturation following Scheuer and Black (2004). Individuals were classified into standardised age ranges (Buikstra and Ubelaker, 1994).

The human remains from the thermally altered secondary deposit were analyzed using a systematic osteological protocol. As noted above, a total of 1,775 bone fragments were examined, grouped into 342 analytical entries based on different criteria. These entries do not correspond to complete bones, but to recording units defined by anatomical identification, laterality, age category, fragmentation, burning degree, and stratigraphic provenance. Only diagnostically relevant fragments were included, excluding those smaller than 1 cm without identifiable features. For each specimen, the following variables were recorded: anatomical element, laterality, age category, degree of fragmentation, stratigraphic provenance, and taphonomic modifications. Anatomical and taxonomic identification followed standard osteological criteria (White et al., 2012), while age estimation was based on epiphyseal fusion of the postcranial skeleton (O’Connor, 2008). The determination of laterality and the identification of duplications allowed the calculation of the minimum number of individuals (MNI = 4) within the thermally altered deposits, applying a multidimensional approach that combines frequency, exclusion, and anatomical association (Lambacher et al., 2016; White, 1953).

Given the presence of thermal alteration, a specific taphonomic analysis was conducted based on macroscopic criteria of coloration and cortical modification (Stiner et al., 1995). This made it possible to estimate the intensity of burning and assess the degree of skeletal alteration, providing key information to distinguish the associated post-depositional processes.

3 Results

The results are presented below in a structured manner, with a synthetic overview of the main variables, stratigraphic relationships, and funerary characteristics summarized in Table 1. Because some individuals share broad stratigraphic horizons but are spatially separated within the chamber, funerary deposits (FD) are used here as analytical units rather than always as spatially compact groups.

3.1 Stratigraphic framework

The funerary stratigraphic framework of SC3 in TT 209 is structured around a complex sedimentary sequence whose basal level corresponds to a compact hydrological sedimentary surface forming the first funerary floor of the chamber (SU 698), directly overlying the carved bedrock (SU 744). Above this initial level lies a relatively compact dark silty-clay deposit (SU 679). This basal assemblage is overlain by intermediate units (SU 678 and SU 680), characterized by heterogeneous facies combining dark sands and compact clay components. These units could be the result of successive episodes of waterborne sediment input, local reworking, and interaction with the developing funerary deposits.

Over these units develops a relatively compact ochre silty-clay deposit (SU 455), showing a mixed composition. This level is followed by SU 367, a thick and heterogeneous reworked accumulation composed of silts, sands, gravels, limestone blocks, plaster, ceramics and displaced funerary materials. Rather than representing a purely natural deposit, SU 367 is interpreted here as the result of mixed formation processes, combining waterborne sediment input, internal sediment reworking, debris transport within the tomb, and anthropogenic or anthropically mediated redeposition. Between SU 455 and SU 367, SU 449 represents a thermally altered funerary deposit situated above SU 455 and below SU 367. The interface between SU 367 and the overlying deposits constitutes a relevant stratigraphic horizon, marked by irregular contacts and concentrations of archaeological materials. Finally, the sequence is completed by a set of upper units (SU 211–200), formed by thin layers of silts and sands with very scarce archaeological content.

3.2 Funerary deposits: composition and spatial distribution

At the base of the sequence, Funerary Deposit 1 (FD1) and Funerary Deposit 2 (FD2) correspond to the earliest funerary assemblages documented on or immediately above the first hydrological surface in SC3 (SU 698). FD1, associated with the interface SU 679–698, is located in the eastern sector of the chamber and includes Mummies 16 and 17; FD2, situated in the southwestern sector, integrates Mummies 13 and 14 on the basis of their spatial proximity, shared westward orientation, and deposition over the upper surface of SU 698, although they were later covered by different stratigraphic units. Both deposits show a clear spatial delimitation and occupy differentiated areas. FD3 corresponds to a single burial, Mummy 15, whose coffin is located at the SU 678–679 interface and filled by SU 680.

In later phases, deposits with greater internal complexity are identified. In this specific case, FD4 should not be understood as a spatially compact funerary group, but as a broad depositional horizon within the broad transition between SU 678 and SU 455. Within this horizon, M12 belongs to the northeastern sequence, where it is placed over the coffin of M16, whereas M10 and M11 are linked to the southeastern accumulative sequence. FD5, contained within SU 455, corresponds to the assemblage formed by Mummies 6, 7, and the canid (Mummy 9). Independently, FD6, defined by SU 449, constitutes a distinct secondary deposit in the northwestern sector, with a minimum of four individuals within the same sedimentary context. At higher levels, FD7, associated with the SU 367–455 contact, includes Mummies 8 and 4; FD8, contained within SU 367, groups Mummies 5 and 3. Finally, FD9, defined at the SU 211–367 interface, corresponds to the most recent deposit, comprising Mummies 1 and 2 (Figure 2).

Figure 2

From a demographic perspective, the earliest deposits (FD1-FD2) show a possible spatial differentiation, with two males concentrated in the eastern sector (FD1) and females in the southwestern sector (FD2). Given the small sample size, this pattern should be interpreted cautiously rather than as a formal sex-based organization of the chamber. This pattern becomes less clearly defined in later phases, where individuals of different sexes and age ranges are incorporated within the same depositional contexts, particularly from FD4 onwards. No consistent differentiation according to sex or age is observed in other funerary variables, including body arrangement, use of coffins, or association with material culture.

3.3 Preservation and anatomical representation

The funerary record of SC3 shows a high variability in the state of preservation of the individuals, with a predominance of primary mummified bodies maintaining different degrees of anatomical coherence. Out of the 17 individuals documented, at least 14 (82.4%) preserve partial or complete anatomical connections. This pattern is consistently observed across several funerary deposits: in FD1 both individuals display high anatomical integrity, although M17 shows alterations in the lower half of the body; in FD2 preservation is also significant, although M13 presents alterations in the vertebral area (Figure 6b); M15, corresponding to FD3, shows a good level of anatomical coherence. In FD4 and FD5 some of the best-preserved individuals are documented (e.g., M10, M11, M6, and M7). In FD7 and FD8, individuals present relatively complete skeletons, although with localized losses such as the lower half of M4. In FD9, both individuals preserve close anatomical connections, although with partial alterations in the cranial area of M1 and a poorer preservation of the lower limbs in M2. In contrast, FD6 constitutes the only deposit with a complete loss of anatomical organization, where the original body arrangement cannot be reconstructed.

The presence of fabrics is recurrent, while soft tissue preservation is more limited and variable between deposits. In FD1 and FD2 (n = 4), evidence of fabrics, possibly including wrappings or shrouds, and accumulations of resins is documented, especially in M13. In FD3 and FD4 (n = 4), fabrics and evidence of internal tissue degradation are recorded, as in M12. In FD5 (n = 3), well-preserved or adherent fabrics are particularly evident, especially in M7. In FD7 and FD8 (n = 4), preservation is more localized, restricted to regions such as the skull, neck, and thorax (e.g., M8). In FD9 (n = 2), both individuals present remains of mummified tissue and darkened fabrics, with partially preserved recognizable wrapping systems in M1. In contrast, FD6 (MNI = 4) does not preserve recognizable fabrics.

3.4 Body arrangement and anatomical relationships

The funerary deposits in this chamber are characterized by the clear predominance of the supine position among individuals in anatomical connection, with some variability in orientation. Since SC3 is oriented along an east-west axis, the primary spatial pattern is the placement of bodies parallel to the chamber walls. Within this arrangement, head and feet orientation varies between individuals. In the earliest assemblages (FD1 and FD2, n = 4), two clearly defined orientation patterns are documented: feet to the east (2/4) and feet to the west (2/4), a pattern that continues in FD3 (n = 1). In the intermediate deposits (FD4 and FD5, n = 5), eastward orientation remains the most frequent (4/6), although westward orientations persist (2/6). In the upper levels (FD7–FD9, n = 6), eastward orientation is again more frequent (5/6) with one individual oriented westward. Overall, the global distribution shows a slight predominance of eastward orientation (≈61.5%) over westward (≈38.5%), indicating the coexistence of two orientations within the same architectural alignment.

Regarding the position of the upper limbs, greater variability is observed (Figure 3). Crossed arms over the thorax represent the most common pattern (8/14), particularly in the upper deposits (FD4–FD9), followed by hands placed on the pelvis (4/14), more frequent in the earlier assemblages (FD2–FD3). Asymmetrical or non-standardized positions (2/14) are documented in specific cases such as M12 and M1.

Figure 3

In terms of inter-individual relationships, upper deposits tend to show direct physical contact between bodies (especially FD5 and FD9), whereas the lower assemblages display a more segregated spatial arrangement (FD1–FD3).

3.5 Superposition and relationships between burials

The funerary sequence in this chamber follows a progressively vertical and accumulative depositional logic, although this does not imply a homogeneous occupation of the whole chamber. The earliest deposits (FD1–FD2 and FD3) are characterized by a horizontal and spatially segregated arrangement (e.g., M16 and M17 in the eastern sector; M13–M14 in the southwest), apparently leaving an intermediate circulation area or empty space between the main depositional sectors. From FD4 onwards a clear shift towards vertical accumulation is observed. This process is especially clear in the southeastern sector: M11 is deposited directly over M15; M6 and M7 form a tightly superimposed funerary package; and the canid (M9) is placed over the lower limbs of both individuals (Figure 4). Similar relationships continue in later phases (e.g., M5 over M6, M3 over M8, M1 over M3), indicating a repeated depositional practice. Overall, at least six of the nine funerary deposits display clear vertical superposition, whereas the earliest deposits show no direct contact with previous phases (Figure 5). This pattern suggests that some lower bodies or coffin structures may have remained at least partially visible or materially influential during subsequent depositions, conditioning both the anatomical position and spatial configuration of the upper individuals.

Figure 4

Figure 5

However, the present vertical position of the mummies should not be read as a direct reflection of their original depositional height. The compression, decay, and collapse of coffins, wrappings, soft tissues, and sediment infill probably caused a gradual lowering of some bodies within the stack, especially in the southeastern sector. Therefore, earlier bodies and coffins may have remained more visible and prominent at the time of later depositions than their current stratigraphic position suggests.

In addition to vertical superposition, more complex relationships of intersection, displacement, and intrusion affect the integrity of several deposits. A clear example is the intrusion SU 716, which cuts directly through M17 and alters its lower half, indicating later re-entry into the chamber (Figure 6a). Further evidence of displacement is visible in M13, where the preserved edges of Coffin 9 and the displacement affecting the vertebral and pelvic areas are shown in Figure 6b. SU 367 reflects major reworking, redistributing materials and human remains, as observed in the remains adhered to the surroundings of M8. Likewise, the thermally altered deposit FD6 (SU 449) represents a secondary funerary assemblage affected by combustion and later disturbance; its original provenance, whether from within SC3 or from another sector of the tomb, remains uncertain. Comparable relationships are observed in FD4, where M12 is deposited over the coffin structure of M16. Taken together, at least three funerary deposits show direct alteration through intrusive or redepositional processes, while others are involved in broader dynamics of contact and spatial reconfiguration.

Figure 6

3.6 Coffins and burial containers

The evidence for funerary containers in SC3 shows a clearly uneven diachronic distribution and a changing functional role through time. In this study, the coffin is considered a structuring element when it physically delimits the body, maintains the anatomical arrangement, organizes associated objects, and defines the spatial boundaries of a discrete funerary unit. At least 7 of the 9 funerary deposits present direct or indirect evidence of coffins, although these are mainly concentrated in the earliest phases (FD1–FD3), where their use is systematic (FD1: M16 in Coffin 7, M17 in Coffin 12; FD2: M13 and M14 in Coffins 9 and 10; FD3: M15 in Coffin 8). In these contexts, the coffin acts as the primary structuring element of the deposit. In the intermediate phases (FD4–FD5), this pattern becomes more complex through the reuse and vertical superposition of containers. For example, M10 is deposited directly over Coffin 5, while M12 is placed inside Coffin 6, which itself lies above Coffin 7 containing M16, creating a sequence of vertical encapsulation. Additional indirect evidence between SU 455 and SU 367—such as fragments of stuccoed wood, painted cartonnage, decorative imprints, and plaster lines(Figure 7)—suggests the presence of dismantled or heavily degraded coffins within these units.

Figure 7

From a spatial and functional perspective, coffins are concentrated in the northeastern (FD1) and southwestern (FD2) deposits, as well as in the earliest deposits of the southeastern sector (FD3–FD4), where the main accumulative sequence develops. In this southeastern sequence, the use of coffins progressively and chronologically decreases until complete absence in the upper deposits (FD7–FD9). In these later contexts, individuals are deposited without containers but are conditioned by pre-existing structures or by the sedimentary topography (e.g., M11 directly over M15; M5 with the skull resting on a ceramic fragment; M2 wedged between limestone blocks). Quantitatively, this represents a shift from systematic coffin use in the initial phases, to fewer and less clearly structuring examples in the intermediate phases, and no clear evidence of coffins in the final deposits.

3.7 Associated funerary material

The assemblage of archaeological materials recovered from this chamber of TT 209 is highly heterogeneous in typology and shows clear diachronic variability, with a progressive transformation in both function and degree of association with the individuals. In the earliest phases (SU 679–698 and SU 578–698), materials characteristic of the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty are present, with a repertoire dominated by ceramics, including Phoenician amphorae, incense cups, and large vessels, deposited in primary position in direct contact with bodies or coffins. These are accompanied by amulets, including Sons of Horus amulets scarabs, as well as and tubular faience beads directly associated with specific individuals (M13, M14, M16, M17). In these contexts, some objects are documented in close anatomical association or within preserved fabrics and body cavities.

In the intermediate units (SU 678–455), ceramic materials possibly associated with the Persian period are documented, also including faience and clay ushebtis, beads, and amulets. These appear both within the sedimentary matrix and at stratigraphic interfaces, as well as in direct association with individuals (e.g., ushebtis and ochre at the feet of M7; scarab and faience tubular beads associated with M12). The secondary deposit FD6 (SU 449) includes small ushebtis, beads, Sons of Horus amulets, ceramic fragments, and plaster remains associated with thermally altered human bones.

In the upper units (SU 367 and SU 211), the material record becomes more heterogeneous and must be interpreted according to different degrees of association. Some objects are directly associated with individuals, such as the ceramic fragments beneath the skull of M5 or the vessel beneath the torso of M2. Others occur in immediate funerary contexts, including concentrations of ushabtis, beads, ceramics, amulets, cartonnage, stuccoed wood, decorated plaster, and fabrics. Finally, many materials appear dispersed within SU 367 and its lower contacts, and may represent residual, redeposited, or reworked elements rather than objects originally associated with specific individuals (Gugel Gironés et al., 2023).

3.8 Post-depositional processes

The post-depositional processes documented in this chamber include both anthropogenic and environmental agents, all of which have had differential effects on skeletal remains, soft tissues, fabrics, coffins, and the sedimentary matrix. Among the anthropogenic processes, SU 367 represents one of the clearest examples of internal reworking and debris transport within the tomb, with silts, sands, gravels, limestone blocks, plaster, ceramics, and displaced funerary materials accumulated in the chamber.

A second major anthropogenic or anthropically mediated process is represented by SU 449, where a thermally altered deposit composed of 1,775 fragments was identified, corresponding to a minimum of four individuals (three adults and one subadult). Some thermally altered fragments were later incorporated into SU 367, suggesting partial redistribution of material originally associated with SU 449. The original provenance of this burnt funerary material remains uncertain, and it may derive either from an earlier deposit within SC3 or from funerary deposits displaced from other sectors of the tomb. A total of 88.6% of the fragments show evidence of thermal alteration, with damage grade 4 (sensuStiner et al., 1995) being the most frequent category, and approximately 36% approaching calcination. Fire-related alteration is more intense in cranial elements and lower limbs, whereas the vertebral column and upper limbs show lower degrees of thermal impact. These data are summarized visually in Figure 8, which presents representative examples of thermal alteration and the distribution of burning damage categories.

Figure 8

Environmental processes are mainly represented by hydrological sedimentation, high humidity, and sedimentary reworking. These processes are reflected in multiple taphonomic alterations at the individual level. These include skeletal fragmentation—slightly more pronounced in the cranium than in the postcranial skeleton—partial displacement of skulls, sediment infilling within body cavities (e.g., SU 675 in M12), darkening and degradation of resin-impregnated fabrics, compression caused by blocks or overlying bodies, and partial loss of textiles. These processes also contribute to the alteration and degradation of coffins and stuccoed wooden elements, likely due to high humidity, episodic flooding, and subsequent sedimentation.

4 Discussion

4.1 From structured individual burials to accumulative systems

This funerary transformation can be clearly observed in the context of TT 209 when contrasting the organization of the earlier assemblages with the later ones. In the deposits possibly associated with the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty (FD1–FD2), bodies, coffins, and associated objects seem to form more individualized funerary units, with a greater spatial separation by sex. This pattern begins to loosen in the deposit possibly linked to the late Twenty-Fifth Dynasty (FD3), and is further transformed from the probably Persian phase onwards (FD4–FD5), when new burials are inserted into areas already occupied by partially visible mummies—as in the cases of M11 placed over M15 or M12 over the coffin of M16—resulting in an increasing density that culminates in the Ptolemaic period (FD8–FD9) in a clearly accumulative system. This process is consistent with what has been observed in other Theban contexts of the first millennium BCE, where the repeated reuse of approximately 80% of the tombs analyzed involved the incorporation of individuals from different chronological phases within the same space, thereby transforming their original logic. For example, several Theban tombs show the simultaneous presence of New Kingdom burials together with Late Period and Ptolemaic deposits within a single chamber (Dodson and Ikram, 2008; Kaczanowicz, 2021). Likewise, the integration of materials and practices from different periods within the same space has also been documented in other funerary contexts at Thebes and Abydos between the Libyan and Late Periods (Budka, 2010).

In this sense, the progressive dissolution of the one-to-one relationship between individual, container, and funerary equipment documented in SC3 fits well with other models of sequential burial described from the late Middle Kingdom onwards, in which the material presence of earlier bodies conditions the incorporation of new individuals and generates relational configurations. This has been documented, for instance, in necropoleis such as Lisht or Dahshur, where the insertion of new individuals into already occupied spaces resulted in complex depositional arrangements (Duncan and Schwarz, 2014; Grajetzki, 2007; Miniaci, 2019). This dynamic contrasts with other Egyptian contexts from the Predynastic and Old Kingdom periods, such as Tell el-Farkha, where even in multiple burials the internal coherence and spatial arrangement still respond to discrete units without diachronic accumulation (Dębowska-Ludwin, 2010). Returning to TT 209, this shift in spatial organization does not appear to be accompanied by substantial changes in basic body arrangements: the supine position is maintained throughout the sequence, and orientation varies within the east–west axis of the chamber without a clear directional evolution. Although the position of the upper limbs shows greater variability in the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty assemblages (FD1–FD3), the predominance of crossed arms in later phases (FD4 onwards) may reflect the increasing use of an Osirian bodily display, since crossed arms are a recurrent attribute of Osirian iconography and funerary embodiment (Assmann, 1991; Budka, 2010). However, this should not be interpreted as direct evidence for a single process of Osirianization. In SC3, arm position is better understood as one element within a wider set of changes in body preparation, wrapping, embalming practice, and depositional context.

4.2 The decline of the coffin as a structuring element

As aforementioned, by “structuring element”, we refer primarily to the physical an spatial role of the coffin in delimiting the body, organizing its associated objects, and defining a discrete funerary unit. Its symbolic significance is not denied, but the present analysis focuses on its observable archaeological role within the depositional sequence. From a diachronic perspective, the role of the coffin in SC3 likewise shows a progressive reconfiguration rather than an abrupt disappearance. In the deposits presumably associated with the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty (FD1–FD2), coffins appear to structure relatively autonomous funerary units, organizing both the anatomical arrangement of the mummies and the concentration of associated elements. This pattern is still visible in the later Twenty-Fifth Dynasty sequence in FD3 (e.g., M15), although already within a context that anticipates increased spatial interaction. From the probably Persian phases onwards (FD4–FD5), this structuring role becomes less stable, as individuals are inserted in direct relation to pre-existing containers—such as M12 over Coffin 7 or M10 over Coffin 5—suggesting that the coffin no longer defines a closed unit but becomes integrated into more complex spatial configurations.

This type of dynamic is again consistent with other Theban contexts of the first millennium BCE, where the reuse of tombs and materials entailed a progressive loss of the exclusive association between body and container, with coffins increasingly incorporated into broader sequences of spatial reuse, superposition, and material reorganization (Kaczanowicz, 2021).

This transformation can be understood within a wider reconfiguration of the Egyptian funerary system, in which the growing density of deposits and the reuse of earlier funerary structures reduced the capacity of coffins to act as the sole organizing frame of burial space (Miniaci, 2011, 2019). At the same time, other changes documented during the first millennium BCE—such as the adoption of strategies of reuse or reduced material investment in some funerary contexts—suggest a shift in focus towards the integrity of the body and the symbolic efficacy of the ritual, rather than the container itself (Aston, 2009; Kaczanowicz, 2021). In parallel, functional and architectural transformations, including the predominance of intrusive burials in pre-existing tombs and the loss of spatial compartmentalization, further reinforce the idea of a progressive breakdown of a funerary system based on self-contained burial units (Budka, 2010; Dodson and Ikram, 2008).

4.3 Verticality, superposition and depositional continuity

The verticality observed in SC3 may reflect more than a simple practical response to the progressive reduction of available space. From FD3 onwards, the repeated deposition within the same funerary column in the southeastern sector—such as M11 over M15, M5 over M6, or the sequence M1 over M3 over M8—suggests that earlier deposits may have remained materially perceptible despite the gradual accumulation of sediments. This perceptibility may have been enhanced by the original elevation of coffins and mummified bodies before later compaction and collapse, and these earlier deposits may have continued to condition later depositions over at least three centuries. In this sense, the relatively high frequency of superpositions (≈66.7%) points to a recurrent depositional practice consistent with previously defined models of sequential burial (Goldstein, 1981; Miniaci, 2019), in which the reopening of tombs and the successive introduction of individuals generate stratified configurations where earlier bodies directly condition later deposition. A comparable logic has been documented in Shaft D of saff-tomb C37, where the vertical accumulation of coffins reflects a prolonged and structured use of space (Carnarvon and Carter, 1912; Miniaci, 2011).

However, it should be noted that physical superposition does not always imply organized depositional continuity. In Predynastic and Old Kingdom contexts such as Tell el-Farkha, superimposed individuals (e.g., graves 52 and 66) have been documented without evidence of successive reopening or reuse of the same location, suggesting that verticality can sometimes result from episodic events rather than sustained accumulative practices (Dębowska-Ludwin, 2010). By contrast, in SC3 the repeated vertical contacts between individuals, together with the absence of complete sediment infilling between depositional events, suggest practical continuity in the use of the same funerary sector, rather than necessarily intentional memorial engagement with earlier burials.

4.4 Re-entry, disturbance and instability of the funerary context

The contextual instability documented in SC3 requires caution in any strictly linear reading of the funerary sequence, as processes of re-entry, disturbance, and alteration appear to constitute structural dynamics of the space rather than isolated or exceptional events. For instance, the intrusion cut (SU 716) located in front of the entrance to SC4—directly cutting M17—can be interpreted as a later intervention consistent with the reopening pattern defined as type h (Miniaci, 2019), in which new funerary actions may take place after prolonged intervals without necessarily removing earlier deposits. Similarly, evidence of specific manipulations—such as the internal fills observed in M12 or the differential degradation of fabrics—is consistent both with the impact of flood events and with patterns documented in other Egyptian contexts where post-mortem interactions involved anatomical displacement, reorganization of funerary equipment, or intervention on bodies still in anatomical connection (Bruyère, 1937), thus challenging the validity of an “intact” reading of the archaeological record (Schiffer, 1985).

This complexity is further intensified when considering the relationship between SU 449 and SU 367, where the thermally altered deposit raises interpretative issues comparable to other contexts involving burned remains in secondary deposition. Taphonomic studies have shown that such assemblages may result from multi-stage processes—including burning, selection, transport, and redeposition—producing configurations that may appear chaotic but are internally structured (Pankowská et al., 2017). The partial concentration of thermally altered remains in SU 449, followed by the incorporation of some fragments into SU 367, may reflect similar dynamics of recombination and redistribution. Since SU 449 lies above SU 455 and below SU 367, it should be interpreted as an intermediate disturbed funerary deposit rather than as part of the final Ptolemaic accumulation. Moreover, the thermal intensity documented—characterized by a predominance of burned fragments and a tendency towards near-calcination—suggests temperatures approaching 550°C under largely anaerobic conditions. The greater impact observed on cranial elements and lower limbs, compared to the relatively lower incidence in the axial skeleton and upper limbs, may be consistent with differences in exposure, preservation, cortical thickness, fragmentation, and the differential survival of anatomical regions.

At the same time, the differential fragmentation and mixing of materials observed in SC3 should not be interpreted solely as the result of destructive processes linked to water and fire, but rather as the cumulative outcome of multiple forms of interaction with the dead—including reopening events, cadaveric manipulation, redeposition, and taphonomic processes—that generate new material assemblages (Weiss-Krejci et al., 2022). From a methodological perspective, this raises the need to critically distinguish between primary, secondary, and embalming-related alterations, as some apparently anomalous anatomical configurations may in fact derive from variability in embalming practices rather than from later disturbance (Tennant, 2015).

4.5 Reuse and the funerary biography of the chamber

The evidence presented here leads us to interpret this chamber of TT 209 as a context formed through a prolonged sequence of reuse, in which depositional practices, disturbance, and accumulation form part of a single historical trajectory, rather than a static funerary space. In this sense, the different phases identified seem to respond less to discrete, self-contained episodes and more to successive interventions within a space that was repeatedly reactivated, where each new action reconfigures—without necessarily erasing—the inherited material conditions. This reading aligns well with previous approaches that understand reuse as a diachronic process articulated through bodies, architecture, and temporality, whereby the tomb becomes a dynamic space of long-term use (Miniaci, 2019).

In other first millennium BCE Theban contexts, this logic has been clearly observed in tombs that were reused and architecturally transformed, such as TT 362, where the enlargement of the funerary chamber during the Libyan Period involved a ritual reactivation of the space (Lemos, 2025; Madej, 2018). More broadly, it has been emphasized that reuse in Theban contexts involved not only new depositions but also architectural reconfigurations, iconographic resignifications, and the prolonged activation of earlier tombs as part of a “materialized past”, as documented, for example, in TT 312 (Kaczanowicz, 2021).

Within this framework, SC3 appears to have retained a degree of material legibility that allowed the repeated integration of new bodies and materials. However, this “memory” should not be understood as necessarily intentional or normative. The term is used here in a material and analytical sense, referring to the persistence of earlier bodies, objects, sediments and architectural constraints within the chamber, rather than to a demonstrable conscious engagement with the past by later users.

4 Conclusions

The archaeothanatological analysis of SC3 allows us to interpret this space within TT 209 not as a static context or a simple aggregation of burials, but as a mortuary environment configured diachronically through the repeated interaction between funerary practices, spatial constraints, ritual choices, political and cultural changes, and taphonomic processes. In this sense, the main objective of this study—reconstructing the depositional sequence and assessing the impact of reuse on the internal organization of the chamber—is achieved by identifying a clear shift from relatively individualized deposits in the early phases associated with the Twenty-Fifth Dynasty to a denser, vertically structured accumulative system in the Persian and Ptolemaic phases.

This transformation does not imply disorder, but rather the consolidation of a different spatial logic. From the late Twenty-Fifth Dynasty onwards, the chamber appears as an active funerary environment in which each new deposition was conditioned by the persistent materiality of earlier ones. In this framework, the progressive dissolution of one-to-one relationships between individual, coffin, and funerary equipment should be understood as the adoption of an accumulative practice shaped by the material continuity of the space, which is the observable persistence of earlier deposits and their capacity to condition later spatial arrangements, where the chamber itself becomes the primary structuring framework. In this process, the coffin does not disappear, but it loses its organizing role in favour of the immediate depositional topography—bodies, sedimentary surfaces, and pre-existing structures—as the main factor conditioning subsequent depositions.

From an archaeothanatological perspective, verticality and superposition cannot be explained solely as the result of spatial saturation, but rather as structuring principles of a sequential depositional logic in which earlier bodies directly condition later ones. However, this continuity was not linear. Re-entry events, secondary redistributions, burning, hydrological inputs, and differential preservation generated a context in which primary, secondary, and transformed relationships coexist. This requires interpreting the chamber as a dynamic funerary assemblage, continuously reconfigured through the interplay of mortuary practices and taphonomic processes.

The main contribution of this study lies in demonstrating the potential of an integrated archaeothanatological approach to address highly complex reused contexts. The combination of stratigraphic analysis, body arrangement, container use, material associations, and taphonomic observation has made it possible to reconstruct the internal logic of spatial reorganization beyond typological or architectural readings, providing a solid case for understanding the formation of collective accumulations in the Theban necropolis at a micro-scale level.

Nonetheless, several limitations must be acknowledged. Flood events, sediment transport, burning, intrusive actions, and later reconfigurations complicate the precise distinction between original depositional relationships and subsequent alterations. These factors, together with uneven preservation, the presence of secondary deposits, and the variable survival of fabrics, coffins, and skeletal elements, require caution when proposing strictly linear reconstructions. Accordingly, some interpretations—particularly those concerning mechanisms of reuse, the intentionality behind certain spatial recurrences, or the original position of the thermally altered deposit—should be considered provisional.

Overall, SC3 can be understood as a funerary space with an accumulative biography, in which reuse did not simply involve the addition of burials, but the progressive transformation of the organization, materiality, and meaning of the space itself. Rather than acting as a passive container, the chamber can be interpreted as a dynamic mortuary environment where bodies, objects, sediments, and architectural constraints shaped the material construction of funerary continuity over time.

References

• 1

  ArnoldD. (1999). Temples of the Last Pharaohs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AssmannJ. (1991). Das Grab des Amenemope TT 41 (Theben 3). von Zabern: Mainz.

  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AstonD. A. (2009). Burial Assemblages of Dynasty 21–25: Chronology, Typology, Developments. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AyadM. F. (2009). God’s Wife, God’s Servant: The God’s Wife of Amun (c. 740–525 BC). London: Routledge.

  • Google Scholar

• 5

  Barahona MendietaZ. (2017). Estudio preliminar de la cerámica procedente de la excavación de la TT 209. Trab. Egiptol. Pap. Ancient Egypt8, 13–30. 10.25145/j.TdE.2017.08.01

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  BoulestinB.DudayH. (2006). Ethnology and archaeology of death: from the illusion of references to the use of a terminology. Archaeol. Pol.44, 149–469.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  BrooksS. T.SucheyJ. M. (1990). Skeletal age determination based on the os pubis: a comparison of the Acsádi–Nemeskéri and Suchey–Brooks methods. Hum. Evol.5 (3), 227–238. 10.1007/BF02437238

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  BruyèreB. (1937). Rapport sur les Fouilles de Deir el Médineh (1934–1935). Deuxième Partie: La Nécropole de L’est (Fouilles de L’Institut Français D’Archéologie Orientale 15). Cairo: Institut Français D’archéologie Orientale.

  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BudkaJ. (2010). “The use of pottery in funerary contexts during the Libyan and late period: a view from thebes and abydos,” in Egypt in Transition: Social and Religious Development of Egypt in the First Millennium BCE. Proceedings of an International Conference, Prague, September 1–4, 2009, eds. BarešL.CoppensF.SmolárikováK. (Prague: Czech Institute of Egyptology), 22–72.

  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BuikstraJ. E.UbelakerD. H. (1994). Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Fayetteville, AR: Arkansas Archaeological Survey.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  Carballo-PérezJ.Molinero PoloMÁ (2021). Mummies under the wadi. Preliminary study of a burial deposit in theban tomb 209 (South Asasif, Egypt). Canar. Arqueol.22, 615–628. 10.31939/canarq//2021.22.52

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  CarnarvonG. E. S. M. H., 5th Earl of, and CarterH. (1912). Five Years’ explorations at Thebes: A Record of Work Done 1907–1911. London: Oxford University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  CooneyK. M. (2011). Changing burial practices at the end of the new kingdom: defensive adaptations in tomb commissions. J. Am. Res. Center Egypt47, 3–44.

  • Google Scholar

• 14

  CrevecoeurI.SchmittA.SchoepI. (2015). An archaeothanatological approach to the study of minoan funerary practices: case-studies from the early and middle minoan cemetery at Sissi, Crete. J. Field Archaeol.40 (3), 283–299. 10.1179/2042458214Y.0000000003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Dębowska-LudwinJ. (2010). Multiple and disordered burials as special funerary practices in early Egypt: examples from tell El-Farkha. Folia Orient.47, 67–86.

  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DodsonA.IkramS. (2008). The Tomb in Ancient Egypt: Royal and Private Sepulchres from the Early Dynastic Period to the Romans. London: Thames and Hudson.

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DudayH. (2009). The Archaeology of the Dead: Lectures in Archaeothanatology. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  DudayH.CourtaudP.CrubézyE.SellierP.TillierA.-M. (1990). L’anthropologie de “terrain”: reconnaissance et interprétation des gestes funéraires. Bull. Mem. Soc. Anthropol. Paris2 (3–4), 29–50. 10.3406/bmsap.1990.1755

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  DudayH.GuillonM. (2006). “Understanding the circumstances of decomposition when the body is skeletonized,” in Forensic Anthropology and Medicine, eds. SchmittA.CunhaE.PinheiroJ. (Totowa, NJ: Humana Press), 117–157. 10.1007/978-1-59745-099-7_6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  DuncanW. N.SchwarzK. R. (2014). “Partible, permeable, and relational bodies in a Maya mass grave,” in Commingled and Disarticulated Human Remains: Working Toward Improved Theory, Method, and Data, eds. OsterholtzA. J.BaustianK. M.MartinD. L. (New York: Springer), 149–170.

  • Google Scholar

• 21

  GoldsteinL. (1981). “One-dimensional archaeology and multi-dimensional people: spatial organization and mortuary analysis,” in The Archaeology of Death, eds. ChapmanR.KinnesI.RandsborgK. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 53–69.

  • Google Scholar

• 22

  GrajetzkiW. (2007). “Multiple burials in ancient Egypt to the end of the middle kingdom,” in Life and Afterlife in Ancient Egypt During the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, eds. GrallertS.GrajetzkiW. (London: Golden House), 16–34.

  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Gugel GironésB.Molinero PoloMÁSánchez CañadillasE. (2023). The set of Ushabtis in the box from SC3, theban tomb 209, Luxor: typological and chronological study and statistical analysis of the dimensions of its figurines. Trab. Egiptol. Pap. Ancient Egypt14, 21. Available online at: https://www.ull.es/revistas/index.php/trabajos-egiptologia/article/view/7896

  • Google Scholar

• 24

  KaczanowiczM. (2021) Old tombs, new tenants: third intermediate period and late period reuse of Theban tombs. (Doctoral thesis). Adam Mickiewicz University.

  • Google Scholar

• 25

  KnüselC. J.Gerdau-RadonićK.SchotsmansE. M. J.BoulestinB. (2022). “Lexicon of terms used in archaeothanatology,” in The Routledge Handbook of Archaeothanatology, eds. KnüselC. J.SchotsmansE. M. J. (London: Routledge).

  • Google Scholar

• 26

  LambacherN.Gerdau-RadonićK.BonthorneE.de Tarazaga MonteroF. J. V. (2016). Evaluating three methods to estimate the number of individuals from a commingled context. J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep.10, 674–683. 10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.07.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  LemosR. (2025). Making plundered spaces sacred again: fragmentation, reorganisation and respect in reused Theban tombs. Antiquity.99 (403), 135–149. 10.15184/aqy.2024.159

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  LemosR.von SeehausenP.Di GiovanniM.GiobbeM.MenozziO.BrancaglionA. (2017). Entangled temporalities in the theban necropolis. J. East. Mediterr. Archaeol. Herit. Stud.5 (2), 178–197. 10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.5.2.0178

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  LovejoyC. O.MeindlR. S.PryzbeckT. R.MensforthR. P. (1985). Chronological metamorphosis of the auricular surface of the ilium: a new method for the determination of adult skeletal age at death. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.68 (1), 15–28. 10.1002/ajpa.1330680103

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  MadejA. (2018). Stamped bricks of amenhotep I from deir el-bahari. Pol. Archaeol. Mediterr.27, 291–300. 10.5604/01.3001.0013.3306

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  MeindlR. S.LovejoyC. O. (1985). Ectocranial suture closure: a revised method for the determination of skeletal age at death based on the lateral-anterior sutures. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.68 (1), 57–66. 10.1002/ajpa.1330680106

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  MenozziO. (2021). Funerary uses and reuses of theban rock-cut architecture between the 9th century BC and the ptolemaic period. Frank. Elektron. Rundsch. Altertumskunde45, 1–25. 10.21248/fera.45.310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  MiniaciG. (2011). Rishi Coffins and the Funerary Culture of Second Intermediate Period Egypt. London: Golden House.

  • Google Scholar

• 34

  MiniaciG. (2019). Multiple burials in ancient societies: theory and methods from Egyptian archaeology. Camb. Archaeol. J.29 (2), 287–307. 10.1017/S095977431800046X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  Molinero PoloMÁ (2016). TT 209. Objectives of the proyecto dos cero nueve and name of the tomb owner. Trab. Egiptol. Pap. Ancient Egypt7, 111–130. 10.25145/j.TdE.2016.07.07

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  Molinero PoloMÁ (2022). “Pilonos, terrazas y enterramientos de época kushita: tres nuevas campañas en la TT 209 (2019–2022),” in Arqueología Canaria en Egipto. Fotografías de José Miguel Barrios Mufrege en la Tumba Tebana 209, eds. Molinero PoloM. Á.Martín FloresA. (Santa Cruz de Tenerife: Universidad de La Laguna / Project two zero nine), 52–65.

  • Google Scholar

• 37

  Molinero PoloMÁHernández GómezC. M.Mohamed AliH.Bakhit Abd el-HafezS.Méndez RodríguezD. M.Guerra-Librero FernándezF.et al (2017). The courtyard of TT 209 (areas C1 and C2). seasons 2012–2014. Trab. Egiptol. Pap. Ancient Egypt8, 245–270. 10.25145/j.TdE.2017.08.09

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  Molinero PoloMÁSoler JavaloyesV. (2019). Environmental conditions in TT 209, Luxor. An example of theban tomb subject to periodic flooding. J. Egypt. Archaeol.105 (1), 115–125. 10.1177/0307513319885087

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  NiwińskiA. (1995). The Twilight of Ancient Egypt: First Millennium B.C.E.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  O’ConnorT. (2008). The Archaeology of Animal Bones. Stroud: The History Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 41

  PankowskáA.SpěváčkováP.KašparováH.ŠnebergerJ. (2017). Taphonomy of burnt burials: spatial analysis of bone fragments in their secondary deposition. Int. J. Osteoarchaeol.27 (2), 143–154. 10.1002/oa.2525

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  RitnerR. K. (2008). “The third intermediate period,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. RedfordD. B. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  ScheuerL.BlackS. (2004). The Juvenile skeleton, 2nd Edn. London: Elsevier Academic Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  SchifferM. B. (1985). Is there a “pompeii premise” in archaeology?J. Anthropol. Res.41 (1), 18–41. 10.1086/jar.41.1.3630269

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  SchotsmansE. M. J.Georges-ZimmermannP.UelandM.DentB. B. (2022). “From flesh to bone,” in The Routledge Handbook of Archaeothanatology, eds. KnüselC. J.SchotsmansE. M. J. (London: Routledge).

  • Google Scholar

• 46

  StinerM. C.KuhnS. L.WeinerS.Bar-YosefO. (1995). Differential burning, recrystallization, and fragmentation of archaeological bone. J. Archaeol. Sci.22 (2), 223–237. 10.1016/S0305-4403(95)80133-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  TennantH. (2015) To walk about as they pleaseth: an exploratory study of limb treatment and positioning in ancient Egyptian mummies. (Master’s thesis). London, ON: The University of Western Ontario.

  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Weiss-KrejciE.BeckerS.SchwyzerP. (2022). “Interdisciplinary explorations of postmortem interaction: an introduction,” in Interdisciplinary Explorations of Postmortem Interaction, eds. Weiss-KrejciE.BeckerS.SchwyzerP. (Cham: Springer),1–21.

  • Google Scholar

• 49

  WhiteT. D.BlackM. T.FolkensP. A. (2012). Human Osteology, 3rd Edn. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  WhiteT. E. (1953). Observations on the butchering technique of some Aboriginal peoples No. 2. Am. Antiq.19 (2), 160–164. 10.2307/277487

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar