2010
Das Grab Locus:7685:006 ist nordöstlich orientiert und weist einen rechteckigen Grundriss auf. Die Abgrenzung im N und W ist auf Grund des angrenzenden rötlichen Materials unsicher. Im SW grenzt es an Grab Locus:7685:007 , dessen Beziehung zu Locus 6 noch unklar ist. Im Süden ist eine Steininstallation, die möglicherweise zu Locus 6 gehören und das Grab, von der Breite aus betrachtet, zu einem Doppelgrab erweitern könnte.
Die äußeren Ränder werden durch eine graue Lehmschicht charakterisiert, in die Steine als äußere Begrenzung und Stütze eingesetzt wurden. Das Grab selbst wird durch schräg in den Boden versenkte Dachziegel eingegrenzt, die in einer Reihe von fünf Ziegeln den "First" des Grabes bilden. Die oxidert gebrannten Ziegel (L: 0,30+x m; B: 0,35 m; D: 0,03 m) weisen ein u-förmiges Profil auf und sind an den Stößen mit schmalen, länglichen Ziegeln abgedeckt. Die Schmalseiten sind mit einem Dachziegel verschlossen. (Christoph Hünecke)
2011
Additional architectural details
Size of stones (average size) (h x l x w):
7.5 cm x 15 cm x 9.5 cm
12 cm x 24.5 cm x 19 cm
18 cm x 21 cm x 14 cm
15 cm x 32.5 cm x 14.5 cm
Length of tomb:
c. 2.00 m
2011 (excavation of tomb)
The tiles were removed on one side of the tomb (in this case those from the south). Subsequently, the (earthen) fill was removed. The aim was to make a picture of the skeleton - if preserved - inside its original sepulchre (cf. http://www.nit-istanbul.org/BarcinHoyukExcavations.html ). Sadly enough, a combination of factors caused a tile fragment to break loose and land on the right side of the skull, which was severly damaged in the event (cf. Tagebuch 04.08.11).
Skeleton:
The skeleton is placed on its back. It lies close to the northern edge of the tomb, i.e. similar to the skeleton found in tomb Locus:7685:051 . However, note that the latter had been placed on its side, facing south. The arms (and hands) of both skeletons were folded across the abdomen (prayer gesture?). Similar postures are known from, for example, Barcin Hoyuk (cf. http://www.nit-istanbul.org/BarcinHoyukExcavations.html ) and Illipinar in western Turkey.
State of preservation:
The bones are not well preserved. They appear instable, which can probably be attributed to the (relatively) intact state in which the tomb was found. The left (middle-lower) part of the skeleton (leg and arm bones) is better preserved than the right side. A partial explanation is that the left middle section of the skeleton had been sealed off by a fallen roof tile (cf. good state of preservation of bones in tomb Locus:7685:051 in combination with tilted roof tiles).
Length of skeleton:
c. 1.60 m (no feet bone were found in situ)
Excerpt from final report S. Fox and K. Marklein:
On August 10th, 2011, at the excavation laboratory in Oymaagac, Turkey, Kathryn Marklein and I (SCF) cleaned and sorted two skeletons from Jacob Eerbeek’s trench (7685): an adult male (006.005); and an adult female (051.007). The skeletons from these discrete, single inhumation tile burials were virtually complete. They were recovered in extended and supine positions with heads west and arms folded over their chests; the woman’s right arm rested at approximately 60 degrees at the elbow across her chest, while the male’s forearms were perpendicular across the abdomen. The woman’s left foot was crossed over her right foot. Although the distal end of the right tibia of the male slightly overlapped the left tibia, the absence of either foot prevented any observation regarding crossed feet. The skeleton of the female was found to be in a better state of preservation (good) than that of the male (fair). These burials are believed to come from Byzantine contexts. Standard methodologies were used to age and sex the individuals (cf. Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994, Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains).
The adult male (7685:006:005) was estimated to be 30-39 years of age at death based upon the morphology of the auricular surface of the right ilium (Phase 3/4, Lovejoy et al. 1985). Sex was determined by morphological means, including a narrow greater sciatic notch and overall skeletal robusticity (Buikstra and Ubelaker 1994). His skeleton is nearly complete and is in a fair state of preservation. Living stature was reconstructed based on the maximum length of his right radius (23.3 cm) at 167.7 cm + 4.66cm (5’ 4 ¼ “- 5’ 7 ¾“) (Trotter and Gleser 1958). His recovered mandibular molars exhibit greater dental attrition than the female. Dental attrition is scored using the Scott (1979) system as follows: #17=Scott 20; #18=Scott 30; #19=Scott 32; #32=Scott 20. He possesses a non-metric trait, a metopic suture of the frontal bone. There are a few pathological lesions demonstrated as well, including reactive bone, evidence of an infection, on the palate of the maxillae generally associated with poor oral health. He appears to have periapical lesions in both alveoli for the mandibular right 1st molar (#30). This can be easily detected from an x-ray. There is also a bone cyst found on the dorsal surface of a foot (tarsal) bone (the right 2nd cuneiform). There is a pseudo-lesion of the proximal right fibula, known as a “tug lesion” (cf. Keats 1984) as well as a pseudo-lesion resembling osteochondritis dissecans of the base of a proximal great toe phalanx (cf. Waldron 2009). These pseudo-lesions could suggest an active lifestyle during the life of this man.
