This burial was first recognized by its in situ skeletal elements, ex situ elements of which where found in two other contexts (features 1705 and 1709). The extant part of the skeleton (unit 10814) is located roughly east-west, with its head located in the west. The body is on its back, and the leggs may have been drawn up over the chest and to the left.
Burial f. 1711 was heavily disturbed when later burial feature 1709 was put in place directly above. In the process of digging the cut for 1709 part of the skeletal elements of 1711 were lifted and put on the sides of the cut (u. 10830) of burial 1709 (or perhaps simply pushed a side).
Due to these circumstances no clear burial cut could be defined for f. 1711, and cut 10836 was defined on an arbitrary basis. Neither was the fill matrix (unit 10837) distinct from that of 10812 to the north. However, a clear break was found on the bottom, where a brown horizon with phytolithes extends over skeleton 10840 below.
It is of interest to note that it seems at present that skeleton 10840, 10814, and 10813 were all located in the same area, directly above one another, and seem to have had similar body positions.
A final matter of interest is that post-excavation work in the human remains lab showed that the isolated skull 10834 found in fill 10807 of post retrieval pit 1705 could be matched to the jaw of 10814, and equally some loose teeth from burial fill 10837 could be matched to the skull. Two scenarios:
First, at the time at which burial 1709 (above 1711) was cut some skeletal elements of 10814 were placed along the edge of 1709. It is possible that the skull was placed on the eastern edge of the cut 10830 of burial 1709, and was then encountered when post retrieval pit 1705 was cut, lifted, and then placed in this pit. This scenario seems unlikely to me given the distict matrix of the fill of 1705 (unit 10807) compared to that in the fill of 1709 (unit 10831). Second the skeletal elements of 10814 placed along the edge of 1709 seem to suggest that the two cut features touched, but that 1705 did not really disturb 1709.
Second, it is possible that at the time at which 1709 was cut (cut unit 10830) some elements of 10814 were put along the edge of this feature, but the skull was lifted and than placed in 1705. This scenario would imply that burial 1709 was put at approximately the same time that post retrieval pit 1705 was cut (it is ofcourse possible that skull 10834 was out in the 'open' for some time. |
