&gt;&gt; In the fire, possibly started by a cooking blaze that got disastrously out of control<p>&gt;&gt; A skull... possibly originally casually buried in the river bank just outside the door of the larger house<p>&gt;&gt; The wheel... may originally have been hanging on a wall.<p>&gt;&gt; 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.<p>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?<p>I&#x27;m curious how much of this comes from the archeologists versus the writers of the article. When I hear &quot;settlement fire&quot; and &quot;skull&quot;, I imagine an assault on the settlement involving an intentionally set fire. But I wouldn&#x27;t publish my baseless speculations in an attempt to fluff the number of words in an article.