Principles

Giorgio Buccellati – November 2006, December 2024

From emplacement to integrative analysis

The primary duty of the excavator is to document fully what has been excavated, not just what pertains to the project’s research strategy or personal scholarly interests. It is to this end that the whole effort of the Urkesh Global Record is directed. Yet it is just as true that excavators have a special relationship to the data, and that the familiarity resulting from their uniquely personal confrontation with those data enjoins them to extract the fullest possible measure of meaning. Even as excavators we must therefore build wider integrative constructs that bring to bear whatever outside evidence is known to us at any given moment.

The integrative dimension, or lack thereof, must not however become a handicap that prevents publication, no more than a lack of a full depositional understanding, or of typological analysis, should hold us back from recognizing the emplacement data’s rightful claim to immediate publication. Hence in many a case (particularly in the future as we expect to arrive at a full publication shortly after the completion of any given season) integrative reflection may be wanting from the early version of any given excavation Unit. Also, in many cases integrative analysis may pertain more properly to a broader Area (e.g., AA) then to a single Unit (e.g., A16).

Integrative analysis relies on comparative material from other sites, and on their interpretation. This applies both to structures and objects. For instance, the Urkesh Temple Terrace can best be understood in relationship to the analogous structure in Tell Chuera and in contrast with the ziggurats in the south. Similarly, the distinctive realistic style of Urkesh glyptics can be appreciated especially when seen in constrast with the more stylized Sumerian glyptics on the one hand, or with the different realistic style of Akkadian glyptics on the other.

Clustering

The concept of clustering provides the fundamental conceptual underpinning for integrative analysis – building on the inner-referential clustering of stratigraphic and typological analysis, and expanding it to include any possible element from whatever context. A complex interaction among elements emerges, which opens ever wider windows onto the historical significance of the finds from the excavation.

There are two major types of clustering, along temporal or functional lines, resulting in periodization and comparative analysis.

Periodization: temporal clustering

The Urkesh Global Record will make room for integrative analysis in the measure in which the excavators may present some reflections from the very early stages of their work, leaving further room for more in depth contributions at later stages of the research. But one aspect of integrative analysis which must be taken into account from the very beginning relates to periodization.

This requires linking chronometry to chronology, i. e., the configurstion of strata (derived from the analysis of contact association amo;ng elements in the ground) with what is known as absolute chronology, i. e., the wider chronological spectrum established on the basis of evidence from other sources.

Comparative analysis: functional clustering

The recognition of typologically defined elements is helped and enlarged by comparative analysis with elements that are not only not in contact in the same excavation, but also and especially with elements from other sites. This applies to elements of the built environment as well as to movable items: a “palace” or a “temple” can be so defined because of the structural similarities with what is found at other sites, and the same goes for a seal or a ceramic vessel.