Hmmm a bit of a tricky one! I would put the beaker as an artefact
associated with the barrow site (if that's where it is from) add the 2
burials as inhumations outside of the barrow. I would certainly add
the fact that an inhumation was found within the barrow to the barrow
record description. Up to you then if you feel it warrants that a
separate record is also added for the inhumation inside the barrow, we
tend to just have one record for the barrow which then describes any
burial etc if found. Check the thesaurus also, it seems inhumation is
only for articulated, unburnt skeleton. If the beaker is from the
grave then I would as the site as inhumation (if it fits the
description) and the beaker as an associated artefact. as a grave is
described as a place of burial I wouldn't really use this as
inhumation is better for the site type. after all it could have been
an empty grave. In the description for inhumation described the grave
cut etc.
Hope this helps
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 14:32:26 +0100
Gary Nobles <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am adding a few burials to the HER, one is within a BA barrow and
>2 others
> are in separate graves all are not contemporary with one another. So
>there is
> a grave, human remains and a beaker. The question is which are
>classed as
> sites? Is the grave a site with the human remains and beaker as
>artefacts or
> should the human remains be a site as well as it is an intact
>inhumation?
|