Analysis of Burial 1 from the Mitchum Site, 31Ch452

During the summer of 1983, as part o f the Siouan Project, the Research Labratories of Anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill conducted limited excavations at the Mitchum site (31Ch452) in Chatham County, North Carolina. The Mitchum site is located on the Haw River about 12 miles southwest of Chapel Hill (Figure 1) . During the field season, 800 square feet of plowzone were removed to uncover an oval structure, 14 features, and one burial, all of which were later excavated. A Small quantity of European trade materials was recovered from the undisturbed contexts of the features and burial. These trade goods included blue and white glass seed beads, 2 brass earspools, and a bifacial gunflint (Davis 1984). The presence of these items of European origin suggests an Early Historic (1625-1675) date for the Mitchum site.
Burial 1 was first observed at the top of subsoil in square 300R660. Initially, the burial was classified as a feature. The feature had a circular outline, and fill consisted of light brown sand with mottled tan sand in the southeast section. Excavation led to the discovery of a side-chamber on the lover west side of the pit. The skeleton of a subadult was found in the chamber on its left side with the head to the north (Plate I). The legs were flexed at the knees. The arms were bent at the elbows with the hands seemingly positioned beneath the chin. Grave goods associated with the individual included a necklace of hundreds of small glass beads of European manufacture, and two brass (or copper) ear ornaments. The drawn glass beads, colored opaque turquoise , have a temporal range of 1600 to 1836 (Brain 1979 :102) . The ear ornaments are circular in shape with a central perforation. The analysis that follows concentrates up the study of the skeletal remains from Burial 1. This analysis includes inventorying the skeletal material, aging the individual at death , and describing pathologies and other anomalies present. The sex of the individual was not determined, as it is difficult, if not impossible, to accurately sex fragmented archaeological skeletal remains of subadult individuals (Ubelaker 1978 : 42).