Unit 5328
Category: layer dug in 1999
Area: South
Interpretive Categories: alluvium,dumping
Data Category Information: Location: external; Deposition: alluviated dumps
Dimensions: 4.2m+ w-e, 1.2m+ n-s, avearge 0.11m thick
Discussion: Fifth spit of (5324) - alluvium with cultural material
Recognition: different colour / texture
Definition: limits of excavation / deep sounding
Execution: trowel / mattock
Condition: moist
Consistency: very firm
Colour: clay with small silt content
Texture: mid brownish grey - 10YR 4/1 dark grey
Bedding: massive
Inclusions: occasional charcoal flecks >4mm c4%, occasional obsidian / bone fragc, moderate small marl pieces, occasional clay objects, occasional lenses of burnt material
Post-depositional Features: deeps sounding
Basal Boundary: faint, smooth, sloping down to south and west, pedelogical
Unit Stratigraphy (as recorded in the field):
Dry sieve volume: 630
Total Deposit Volume: 715
Number of Samples recorded by excavator: 20
Number of Related Diary Entries: 0
Settlement Phase:
Associated Mellaart Levels (from Space):
Associated Hodder Level (from Space): Unassigned at present
| Related Photos: 1 (Opens as a group in a new window) | |
| Buildings: none | |
Spaces: (Click to view the record)
| |
| Features:: none |
Finds Room Information:
All material from site passes through the finds room for washing and separating before it is passed onto the various lab teams. The finds room keeps a basic inventory of what is found. A finds material type list is given here. Further analytical detail maybe provided by the Lab Team data below.
X Finds Material: nothing recorded
Finds Material Stored: nothing recorded
Lab Team Data
Please note the list below does not represent everything that might have been found in this Unit, but represents the datasets we have available on-line. Please ArchaeoBots Sample Recorded: No Ceramic Records: No Clay Object Records: No Chipped Stone Records: No Conservation Recorded: No Faunal Records: Yes
Count of records:: 436
Unit description: F 4, 5 and 50 subsampled for ZooMS (DCO 2014). Fragmentation is much less than was seen in the upper dumps; pieces are larger, there are more long bone ends, diagnostic bones, and the splinters are not as broken. Butchery is moderately high, however, showing that the bones were certainly being processed (skinning marks especially are common), processing was not as intensive as in upper levels. Large animals are much more prominent in this unit than in upper dumps. Most strikingly, cattle are present in fairly large amounts (they are nearly absent in upper levels); but as usual sheep and goat are the main species represented. Pig is represented by teeth and mandibles only, but several individuals of varying ages are present. Small equid, large cervid (one mandible fragment), medium canid and birds are also represented. A collection of fetal or neo-natal sheep or goat long bones were present; they were not indicated as being articulated when excavated, but are likely from the same individual. Weathering is at a general low level across the unit, with some pieces showing very heavy weathering, indicating that they came into the deposit from other contexts. A tiny amount of small pieces show water abrasion. Gnawing and digestion are low to moderate, and much lower than in the upper dumps, indicating less carnivore scavenging; possibly the unit was not exposed as long as were the upper dumps. There is a small amount of mixed low temperature burning on several or parts of several bones, of the sort one would expect if joints of meat were being cooked. This material is post-consumption rubbish, as were the upper dumps, but represents a very different kind of consumption than those units. The use of cattle and other diverse meat animals (equid, pig, deer) and the less intensive processing of bones possibly indicates more abundant resources, or greater access to resources, than those available to the people who deposited the later units. Might this be a seasonal effect? In the 2000 study season, some more material from this unit was studied. There was some more dry sieved material, which came from a special sample 4 taken for the archaeobotanists to look for water-logged floral material. There were also two flot samples (4mm); these are #2 and #3. These new samples are not very different from the main material studied in 1999: the body parts represented, the condition of the bones (burning, weathering, cut marks, etc.), and the species present are more or less homogeneous with the main bone assemblage. Fragment of worked bone object from sample 2, belt hook or eye?Figurine Records: No Ground Stone Records: Yes
Count of records:: 13 Heavy Residue Records: No Microfaunal Records: No
Sorry not all of this data is available online at present, please contact us if you are particularly interested microfauna recordsPhytolith Sample: No
Sorry not all of this data is available online at present, please contact us if you are particularly interested phytolith samplesDownload this Units Data
main sponsors
secondary sponsors
