Kaloriziki, Tombs (extracted from McFadden's notebooks)

Kal T34

No complete skeleton was found in situ, but part of one. However, in two amphorae were found respectively "apparently a complete skeleton" and "human bones, minus the skull and legs, thus probably the missing part of the partial skeleton in situ." This situation should be compared to that of Tomb 41, in which human remains (associated with earlier burials) were found in three separate amphorae, in addition to a skeleton in prone position. In that instance the bones in the amphorae represented earlier burials which were cleared aside to make room for the final use of the tomb. It seems possible that persons desiring to re-use T34 were in the process of placing bones from two skeletons in amphorae when they were diverted from this activity. The arrangement of objects found by the excavator (see plan) scarcely allows sufficient space for one, let alone two, more burials, which makes it seem likely that these objects were moved about, perhaps several times, by the persons who placed the bones in the amphorae. Thus it is impossible to associate given finds with an earlier or later burial. In any case they must be roughly contemporaneous.(CGIA)

[Daniel's interpretation does not seem to me admissible. Since he found nothing in the "arrangement or stratification (sic) of the tomb to indicate that the second skeleton - the supposedly complete one in no. 52 - was ever buried prone in the chamber" he chose to associate all the finds including those in the dromos with the first skeleton. But that would presuppose that the persons in charge of this second burial only partially cleared up an already existing burial and then deposited an entire, new corpse in an amphora. (The excavator does not mention any sign of cremation). Surely all of this would be unparalleled procedure.]

The finding of the remains of earlier burials placed in amphorae corroborates the testimony of T41 that persons re-using grave chambers were not indifferent to previous inhabitants but treated them with a certain amount of consideration. Notice also the replacing of the dromos gifts. One may note the contemporaneity of T34 and the intermediate burials of T41

A similar puzzling situation exists from T.33. The lower half of a skeleton was found in situ; other bones (kind not specified) were found in an amphora under some plates. These Daniel called "the bones of the former inhabitant of the tomb." Do some of the pots then belong to an earlier burial? In any case the pottery appears to be all of the same period. Since there is among none of these tombs the slightest reported evidence of cremation it seems safest in every case of bones in an amphora to reckon with the cleaning up of a normally buried corpse (to make room for another) This is borne out by D's remarks about the skeleton found in an amphora in T37. Cf. however T39, a clear case of cremation (also T40?)