First, all cemeteries are located outside the medieval city,⁴² usually near one of the main city gates.⁴³ Unlike Christian cemeteries, these burial spaces were never located in the immediate vicinity of the synagogue. This point is clearly influenced by the Jewish laws which consider the corpse as impure and oblige the faithful to place the cemetery far from the places of worship.

One of the constants in the organisation of burials in Jewish cemeteries is the avoidance of overlaps between ancient graves, in keeping with Jewish laws⁴⁴ that forbid the disturbance of ancient graves.⁴⁵ To comply with these prescriptions, the communities used various means. The first was setting up markings for the graves. This may have taken different forms — on the surface of the ground or even inside the fill.

The most common way was to indicate the location by a marker above the fill (in wood or stone). Those made of stone (sold after the expulsions) were erected (stele) in Ashkenazi cemeteries or placed on the ground (slab) in Sephardic cemeteries (like the one found in Barcelona). They must have been inscribed in order to facilitate the identification of the deceased.

The location of the graves could also have been marked by the installation of an apparent surface demarcation (perimeter of the grave as in Toledo) (Fig. 22) or by the installation of a pavement around the periphery of the grave (Seville). The gravedigger could, finally, be helped by the covering stones of anthropomorphic tombs (Tarrega, Barcelona, Lucena and Toledo) or the brick lucillo vaults.

At the same time, marking could be internal, with arrangements in the filling of the grave as the filtration of sediment (Toledo), the deposit of large blocks of stone or horizontal tegulae (Lucena). All these devices have contributed to the preservation of ancient graves. Though cases of overlap are known, they remain relatively rare compared to those of the Christians⁴⁶ and only very exceptionally disturbed the bones.

The second way to avoid disturbing ancient tombs is through extremely rigorous management of space. This is reflected in a more or less strict organisation in rows (Châteauroux, York, Basel, Rome, Bologna, Toledo, Seville), suggesting an optimisation of the available space (evident in Châteauroux, where there is little space between the graves). At Lucena, les tombes paraissent désorganisées [the tombs seem disorganized]. The Winchester site has both types of organisation, rows and groups, but this seems to be more in response to considerations related to the age of the individuals⁴⁷.

This optimisation of space can also be seen at Basel, where the youngest individuals were deposited between the adult graves. Cases of superimposition or overlapping are recognised (Barcelona, Seville) and are made possible by natural (floods) or anthropic (embankments) contributions of sediment.

Family ties are suspected for some individuals, on several sites, and take the form either of enclosures (Toledo), or of a rapprochement of graves highlighted by DNA results, as at Châteauroux. Also, the management of burials may be influenced by age or sex criteria, as at Châteauroux, York or Winchester. However, the sometimes limited samples of graves (Barcelona 2001), the absence of anthropological studies (Toledo 2009) or the use of old methods (Barcelona) or even outdated methods (York) as well as the poor conservation of bones (Lucena) considerably limit this assessment of cemetery management.

The modes of burial appear to be diversified, but this must be qualified with criteria of chronology and space. Those presented here were used from the 10/11th century (Lucena) to the 15/16th century (Rome and Bologna). This long period of time may have influenced burial patterns and make comparisons more complex. Thus, while all the sites mention the use of coffins, the Lucena site did not yield any. This absence is perhaps linked to the early age of the site. In the same way, distances and cultural areas may have had an impact on burial practices.

The modes of burial seem less diversified in countries outside of Spain. Indeed, if the use of wooden coffins nailed in simple pits appears to be in the majority on many sites (York, Basel, Winchester, Rome, and Bologna), other modes (anthropomorphic pits, tombs with side cavities, masonry tombs) are present in large numbers on the Iberian Peninsula. The use of stretchers is recognised at the sites of Tárrega and Châteauroux, but could be more important. It is indeed difficult to identify such a device once decomposed, especially if it was deposited on the pit floor.

Stretchers composed of several wooden elements assembled with nails could easily be mistaken for coffins. These modes of burial are not unique to Jewish communities, since they are shared by Christians as with coffins⁴⁸ or anthropomorphic tombs⁴⁹ (Fig. 23). Some types, such as side‐cavity tombs, even seem to be borrowed from the Muslims of Spain.⁵⁰ It should be noted, however, that the latter type is not found elsewhere in Europe at the same period. Only the use of the lucillo could be exclusive to Jewish communities, as Arturo Ruiz Taboada assumes.⁵¹

Overall, the positions and orientations of the bodies seem relatively uniform. We observe that the deceased are almost always lying on their backs with their limbs extended and their heads facing west. Slight variations exist (York). On the other hand, the position of the hands crossed on the abdomen or on the thorax (high position) is one of the best criteria for identifying a non‐Jewish tomb.⁵² Indeed, archaeological observations in Jewish burial spaces reveal that the extremities of the upper limbs are almost exclusively in the down position.

In this respect, individuals in Jewish cemeteries are very clearly distinguished from Christians. According to a mandate issued in 1482 by Queen Isabella, placing the hands along the body would be a typically Hebrew practice, since she asked the Inquisition to search for cemeteries of converts where communities applied a funeral ritual with ‘…arms extended and not placed in a cross…’.⁵³