Both textile and raw cotton were visible on the CT scans. Only standalone details were clear, such as textile pieces that were wrapped around the body, connecting the right forearm bones and the skull, around the skull itself, and another attached to the left distal femur (these were pieces of Layer 8 – see below). An organic mass was also detected inside the skull, probably the remnants of the brain/meninges. However, when the organic materials were massed together it was impossible to differentiate individual layers. Upon dissection, nine layers were detected and numbered from 1 (exterior) to 9 (adjacent to the remains). Not all layers were visible in all locales, although the head showed the most superimposition. The layers are summarised in Table 2. Upon dissection it was also noted that the fingers of the right hand had been looped with a cotton thread and that the pelvis had been filled with four large blocks of raw cotton These did not stand out on the CT images; patches of preserved skin on the cranium, humeri, and scapula were also radiographically invisible.
Table 2: Bundle layers of E300
Layer
|
Description
|
Notes
|
1
|
Thick vegetal cordage wrapped horizontally
|
Bands 3 cm across
|
2
|
Leaves/twigs bundled together into a discrete layer
|
7cm thick
|
3
|
Thin vegetal cordage wrapped transversely & longitudinally
|
1cm across
|
4
|
Extremely fine cotton netting – highly degraded
|
Holes c. 1.5cm across
|
5
|
Leaves (a few twigs) densely packed into a discrete layer
|
12-13 cm thick
|
6
|
Thin ropes (round cross-section) tied around (5)
|
<1cm thick
|
7
|
Raw cotton with seeds – differential distribution
|
V. thick on the base
|
8
|
Plain cotton textile – close weave
|
Poorly preserved
|
9
|
Raw cotton with seeds
|
Sporadic
|
Demography 1: Sexing
The sex of E300 was ascertained by scoring the characteristics of the skull (glabella, mastoid processes, supraorbital torus/margins, bossing, suprameatal crest and nuchal eminence) and the pelvis (ischiopubic ramus, greater sciatic notch, preauricular sulcus and subpubic angle/concavity), using conventions laid out in Bass (2005), Buikstra and Ubelaker (Buikstra & Ubelaker, 1994), Krogman & İşcan (1986) and Phenice (1969). LSO and an independent researcher (ADB) separately scored these traits on the CT scans, and then on the dissected remains. The results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3: Sexing scoring for E300
|
CT
|
Dissection
|
Trait
|
LSO
|
ADB
|
LSO
|
ADB
|
|
Nuchal Eminence
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
|
Bossing
|
Male?
|
-
|
Male
|
-
|
|
Glabella
|
Male
|
? Male
|
? Male
|
Indeterminate
|
|
Superciliary Ridges
|
Male
|
? Male
|
? Male
|
Indeterminate
|
|
Suprameatal Crest
|
? Male
|
Male
|
? Male
|
? Male
|
|
Superior Temporal Line
|
? Male
|
-
|
Indeterminate
|
-
|
|
Mastoid Processes
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
|
Supraorbital Margins
|
? Male
|
? Male
|
? Male
|
Male
|
|
Greater Sciatic Notch
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
|
Preauricular Sulcus
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
|
Subpubic Angle
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
|
Ischiopubic Ramus
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
|
Subpubic Concavity
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
Male
|
|
Of the 14 methods, 11 were used by both researchers, and of these, there was precise concordance in 7 [63.6%], and one degree of difference (i.e., between ?M–M, ?F-F, or ? to ? F/?M) in 4 [36.7%]. Once the bundle had been dissected, they were assessed again; dissected observation inter-observer concordance was 8/11 [72.7%], the remaining 3/11 [27.3%] being one degree different.
It is therefore apparent that slight inconsistencies of reporting may be expected more with CT images than when handling the materials directly, a fact also true of photographic images. Intra-observer CT/tactile concordance was therefore 7/11 (100%) for ADB and 12/13 (92.3%) for LSO; all non-matches were one degree different (i.e., between ?M–M, ?F-F or ? to ?F/?M. The highest concordance was between large bony trait structures (i.e., the greater sciatic notch) that were visible on CT images from almost any angle (Fig. 6). Traits that rely more on profile changes on a bone surface – such as the superciliary arches, or bossing – were hard to see, and thus more likely to be scored inconsistently. Pelvic traits were 100% consistently recorded in all cases by both researchers (5/5); cranial trait exact concordance was 33% (ADB 3/6) to 50% (LSO 4/8). While there was only one degree of difference between each non-matched observation, this has obvious implications for more ambiguous individuals for which no strong traits can be observed (see Chapman et al., 2020).
Demography 2: Ageing
Standard methods were employed to ascertain age, including bone development, epiphyseal fusion, dental development/eruption, pubic symphysis, auricular surface, cranial suture closure and dental wear Brooks & Suchey (1990); Buikstra & Ubelaker (1994); Lovejoy et al., (1985); Schaefer et al., (2009). These results are presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Age scoring for E300
|
CT
|
Dissection
|
Age
|
Trait
|
LSO
|
ADB
|
LSO
|
ADB
|
|
Pubic Symphysis
|
-
|
-
|
3-4
|
3
|
Young-Middle Adult (20-49)
|
Auricular Surface
|
-
|
-
|
3
|
2
|
Young Adult (20-34)
|
Dental Development
|
21+
|
21+
|
21+
|
21+
|
Adult (21+)
|
Bone Fusion
|
17+
|
17+
|
17+
|
17+
|
Adult (17+)
|
Dental Wear
|
40-50[10]
|
40+
|
40-50+
|
40+
|
Middle - Older Adult (40+)
|
Cranial Sutures
|
35-50+
|
? [11]
|
35-50+
|
-
|
Middle - Older Adult (35+)
|
There was 100% inter-observer concordance and between CT and dissection data. The individual was adult based on the fully erupted dentition and fused epiphyses, although many of these (i.e., distal femur/proximal tibia) could not be seen on CT images owing to their high trabecular content. Symphyseal and auricular ageing methods could not be used on CT images. While some cranial sutures were visible, it was impossible to differentiate between fully open (<34) and ectocranially fused (>50). High levels of AMTL precluded dental wear scoring, although extensive AMTL is loosely indicative of an older age.
Anatomy: Cranial Non-Metric Traits
General points concerning the skull’s tabular form – notably the deformed occipital, flattened frontal and bulging parietals – were noted and confirmed by both researchers. The CT images of the skull were then scored for selected non-metric traits. Dental traits could not be scored owing to the extreme levels of wear. Nineteen cranial traits were scored: nine ossicular traits (asterionic, occipitomastoid, lambdoid, sagittal, bregmatic, lambda and coronal; Inca bone and os japonicum), two sutural (metopic, infraorbital), two tori (maxillary and palatine), four foramina (zygomaticofacial, supraorbital [+supraorbital notch], infraorbital and parietal) and one exostosis (external auricular). Scores (presence/absence) for 16 of the 19 variants (84.2%) were confirmed via dissection. There were no false positives. Scoring inaccuracies occurred in two ossicular and one sutural variants, owing to sutural interdigitation complexity, image resolution and obstruction by organic material obstruction.
Pathology
No pathological lesions were noted on the CT, except for notable dental pathology; inter-observer concordance was 100% for gross details of the dentition (i.e., presence/absence) but differentiating between ante/post-mortem was less clear. Differentiating between non-infective periapical activity and infective lesions in CT images was also difficult, although gross exposure of the roots was clear. The strong oblique labial wear to the anterior dentition was visible in the scan, as was damage such as chipping to the right canine. Dissection of the remains indicated some periosteal reaction on the limb bones and ribs and mild vertebral osteophytes.
Overall Burial Interpretations
The skeletal remains indicate the presence of a single individual, which was manipulated/disturbed, and then additional elements from a second individual were inserted into the bundle. The absence of the mandible and first two cervical vertebrae suggests that the original cranium, mandible, humerus and upper vertebrae may have been removed in one piece, whilst still articulated. The bones of the left forearm were also removed, before the insertion of the secondary cranium; the latter does not match the wear extent or pattern of two loose teeth found in the pelvis. This did not take place in the vicinity of the final burial context, which was sealed, roofed and undisturbed, and no other burials or skeletal remains were found nearby. This is highly unusual for the Ychsma – who tended towards group burials – implying special treatment for this individual. The condition of the bundle makes it unlikely that it was exposed long-term, indicating that it was either 1) interred, exhumed/manipulated, then reinterred; or 2) the bundle was interred, then manipulated in situ, then roofed and re-covered. The latter is the more parsimonious interpretation, although the lack of fragments and detritus from the bundle’s opening and manipulation is striking. While secondary burial or burial reprocessing has been noted elsewhere at Pachacamac (Takigami et al., 2014; Eeckhout, 2012 [E20: 2000]) and Pampa de Flores; the current bundle was not entirely rewrapped (Eeckhout, 2012), nor disarticulated then repackaged for burial (Eeckhout, 1999b). The bundle appears to have been opened superiorly, elements removed, and packing introduced into the abdomen/pelvic area before the replacement of the (wrong) skull, in some respects resembling the element harvesting observed by Takigami et al., (2014), and a poorly wrapped Ychsma subadult at the same site (E292), the skull of which had been stuffed with cotton in order to make it appear more intact, rigid or ‘lifelike’ (Owens & Davies-Barrett, 2019).
The lapse of time between initial interment and reprocessing is debatable, but some soft tissue is likely to have remained given that the elements seem to have been removed as a block, yet the body would have been skeletal enough to result in the dropping-off of small elements (finger phalanges) that remained in the base of the bundle. This internment predates E20 and Pampa de Flores by around 3-400 years (Pazdur et al., 2007), and it is probable that the differences between them reflect behavioural trends, given the seeming longevity of burial processing traditions (Takigami et al., 2014; Motley et al., 2021). Finally, E20 is notable for also having been isolated, and seems to have been deposited in connection with the ritual reuse and redevelopment of Pachacamac’s “Temple of the Monkey” (Eeckhout, 2012). The isolation and apparently ‘special’ treatment of the current case may reflect a similar attitude.
[10] Extensive AMTL and some PMTL – attribution uncertain
[11] Inconclusive: Lambdoid and coronal suture visible but squamosal suture unobservable