Clustering

Back to top: Clustering

The concept

Individual elements, as defined through the categorization system, can be grouped according to different analytical criteria. Objective clustering patterns are then identified, which can be described in terms of the nature of either the reference or the inference, as follows:

1. context: the clustering among elements is purely inner-referential (the relevant factors are drawn only from the immediate context to which the element belongs) or else it is extra-referential (the relevant factors are drawn from multiple contexts);
2. relationship among elements: the resulting cluster speaks to either a dynamic or a static dimension, i. e., the elements do or do not affect each other;
3. nature of elements: do the elements belong to the same category or not?

elements'			class
1. context	2. relationship	3. nature
inner	dynamic	indifferent	stratigraphy
	static	identical	typology
extra		multiple	integrative

We will now look at the three distinct classes from the point of view of the three clustering criteria. And see also the grammar.

For more on this topic see Buccellati G. and Kelly-Buccellati 2025 “Temporal Clustering” [refer to MEL, CAR].

Back to top: Clustering

Stratigraphy

Stratigraphic clustering views the elements from the point of view of their emplacement, which may be intentional or accidental. The clustered elements are seen in terms of their

1. elements’ context: only the elements that are found in contact in the excavation are considered as pertinent, in a purely inner-referential mode;
2. elements’ relationship: the contact association as defined by emplacement establishes a dynamic time sequential factor among elements; for example, a pit that cuts a floor is understood as being later than the floor;
3. elements’ nature: any element that is found in the matrix of the soil is a pertinent object of analysis, regardless of its nature (a living root or rodent hole are on the same level as am ancient wall or a cuneiform tablet).

Viewed structurally, a stratum can be defined the cluster of elements that share one or more contact association factors. For example, all elements that are the subject of a depositional verb (except if the verb is “to bond”) are subsequent in time to the element that is the object.

Back to top: Clustering

Typology

Typological clustering views the elements in terms of their formal congruity, as defined by the categorization system. The clustered elements are seen in terms of their

1. elements’ context: only the elements that share the same formal attributes are considered as pertinent, in an inner-referential mode, e. g. the same type of wall or the same type of ceramic vessel; the context may draw outside the realm of the excavation, but the items selected remain within the same typological domain (pits, vessels);
2. elements’ relationship: the relationship is static, in the sense that time differential plays no role in the system: elements are associated only on the basis of their formal characteristics;
3. elements’ nature: only elements that share the same nature (walls, vessels) are included

For example, two or more vessels or sherds that share the same ware (e.g., “red orange calcite temper ware“) are seen as forming a cluster independently of their emplacement and contact association patterns.

Viewed structurally, a “family” can thus be defined as a cluster of elements that share the same formal trait. For example, all the ceramic vessels that share the same basic shape are clustered together as a family.

Back to top: Clustering

Integrative

Integrative clustering views elements in terms of their very diversity, drawing on the cumulative value of different comparative traits.

1. elements’ context: context plays no role, hence any element is viewed, extrareferentially, in the light of any other element, whatever its context, for whatever information it may contribute;
2. elements’ relationship: as with typology, the relationship is static, in the sense that time differential plays no role in the system: elements are associated on the basis of whatever information may derive from their study;
3. elements’ nature: the wider the range the better, so written text from the excavation may be linked to texts from far away and in turn to structures and objects from the excavation.

The range of contributing factors is enlarged to a much greater dimension when external factors are brought in, such as comparative material from other sites, the reading of texts belonging to a given stratum, or archeometric considerations such as the results of radio carbon dating of stratified organic materials.

Viewed structurally, this type of clustering is much more diffused, as it embraces a number of disparate elements. This type of clustering yields fundamental new insights into a number of different cultural settings, such as the functional nature of a given space or the place of a stratum in a given time period defined in terms of absolute chronology. For instance, the cultic nature of the abi is inferred from the type of animal bone samples as well as the general layout of the structure, when compared to later Hurrian texts that describe necromantic rituals. Or the exact dating of the phase following the construction of the AP palace can be determined on the basis of the written text (seal legends) that give the name of Tar’am-Agade, daughter of Naram-Sin.

The depositional history of any given unit integrates the data from stratigraphic and typological analysis with comparative data in order to arrive at the fullest possible understanding of how things have gotten to be where they are (deposition) and what they mean in terms of the larger historical picture we know not only for Urkesh, but for Syro-Mesopotamia.