Printed from the APC web site: navigation and non-essential images removed.
Please view on-line for full content (URL at end of document).
The cremated bone recovered from three features, F116, F125 and F134 (Contexts 1141, 1149 and 1166) was examined for identifiable bone fragments.
Feature 116 produced a small quantity of tiny bone fragments (2mm or smaller), which were all white and well calcined. The fragments were too small and eroded for identification.
Feature 134 produced slightly more bone and larger bone fragments, which were between 2 to 4mm in size, with one larger fragment. They were also well calcined, but were less eroded than the cremated remains from Feature 116. One vertebral facet, one long bone fragment and one skull fragment were identified. It is possible that these were human, but this could not be confirmed.
Feature 125 produced a much larger quantity of bone compared to the other two contexts. Fragment size varied from 2 to 10mm. The colour of the bone varied additionally, from brown fragments, which did not appear to be burnt, to white bone, which was well calcined. Little erosion could be observed. None of the bone form this context was obviously human, although some of it appeared to be non-human.
In order to gain more information about the cremated bone from these features, it would be useful for a zooarchaeologist who has experience of cremated bone to examine the remains for identification of non-human remains. While the bone structure appears very different between human and non-human bones in an inhumed state, cremated bone can only be differentiated by morphological characteristics which identify each species.
Further data about the site may be obtained by the analysis of the charcoal fragments which were included in the pit with the cremated bone. While some tree species are commonly used as pyre wood, such as oak, others, such as ivy, have also been observed in association with the cremated bone, but tend to be more uncommon. This may be of special significance, as the charcoal and one is usually specifically selected from the pyre site for burial, probably by someone who has some anatomical knowledge of animals and humans. This usually results in the representation of only some of the skeletal elements in burial.
Only little information could be gained from the initial analysis of the Nosterfield cremation deposits. The considerable erosion, especially observed on the bone from F116, is probably due to modern ploughing of the site, although it may have been partially caused by the acidic soil conditions. It could be observed that most of the bone was well cremated, resulting in the loss of the organic properties of the bone. Only some of the bone, from Feature 125, was less well cremated, or not burnt at all, suggesting later mixing of bone which had undergone different predepositional processes.