>> A skull... possibly originally casually buried in the river bank just outside the door of the larger house
>> The wheel... may originally have been hanging on a wall.
>> the people of this settlement lived on and in the water and were rich enough to all but ignore the abundant food a few feet away... Instead the bones and food traces reveal that they were eating quantities of lamb, along with pork, beef and venison, and various grains.
What is with the overabundance of conjecture with no evidence to back up such claims? Whose first impression of a settlement burned to the ground is that it was likely caused by an out of control cooking fire? Why speculate about a wheel hanging from a wall? A skull is assumed to have come from a burial? The lack of fish bones implies they ate no fish?
I'm curious how much of this comes from the archeologists versus the writers of the article. When I hear "settlement fire" and "skull", I imagine an assault on the settlement involving an intentionally set fire. But I wouldn't publish my baseless speculations in an attempt to fluff the number of words in an article.