7. The Main Lexicon

A lexicon has been defined (2.5) as the list of attribute states or variants, i.e., the specific information that fills a given roster slot (attribute argument or variable). The term “lemma” (plural “lemmata”) refers to the concrete lexical item(s).

The list is open ended, and as such it is susceptible of additions at any time. Thus, whether or not or a lexical entry “earring” for the roster slot B10 = “definition” is present in our lexicon, or a lexical entry “green” for the roster slot K5 = “color,” and whether or not it has been used in the past, it can be introduced at will the first time it becomes pertinent. It is important that in such cases a precise definition be given within the record itself: this is done by using the category –rd “roster definition” under “incidentals” (see bolow, 7.5.4).

In this perspective, a formal listing of lexical entries would seem unnecessary. If that is not so, and if I undertake to give just such a list in this chapter, it is for two major reasons:

1. In most cases where a lexical entry is expected, there is a correlative need for sorting. Thus, for example, it is obviously desirable to sort the entries for the roster slot "definition" in such a way that we have all ceramic vessels together, all seal impressions together, and so on. A uniformity of lexical entries is expected to make such sorting possible: it would not work to call the same type of object "ceramic vessel" or "pottery item," "seal impression" or "rolling," and so on.
2. The simplest function of a lexical list is, therefore, to provide consistency in the use of appellations for distinct phenomena. In the input phase, it will also serve as a list of abbreviations, or codes, that can be more easily utilized in a uniform manner. Just as we saw in the case of the roster (6.1), this aspect of the current presentation is of no concern to a normal user of the system, since in the display version as embodied in the browser edition all abbreviations are resolved, and thus no knowledge of the codes is expected.
3. More important is the conceptual dimension of the lexicon. Terms like "floor" and "fill" appear at first to have an evident meaning – the first term referring to a walking surface, and the second to material deposited within a given space. But closer inspection will reveal great variations. These have to be spelled out, and this goes to the core of the conceptual dimension of the lexicon. What is important in this endeavor is not so much to canvass a dictionary for definitions and paraphrases, but to articulate the variations into structured sets, where the definitions arise from contrasts among the members of the set. This I seek to do, to a limited extent and only for some basic categories, in this chapter.

The individual lexical items given below reflect different degrees of specificity, and no attempt is made to provide a finer hierarchy in this regard within each of the categories. It is also important to note that the record may well reflect successive moments through which different, and progressively higher, degrees of specificity are ascertained and assigned to the data. At Tell Mozan, this has often been the case, for instance, in the case of cl “clay lumps.” It was imperative, when collecting them in the field, that no attempt be made to determine whether they were sealings, and if so whether they were impressed with the rolling of a seal, for to attempt even a modicum of cleaning before they had become dry might seriously jeopardize their integrity. But after cleaning in the laboratory, such determination could, and would, be made. We estimate that we have collected some 10,000 cl clay lumps, of which only about 2,000 turned out to be sl “sealings,” of which again only some 1,600 bore a si “seal impression,” and a few even turned out to be tablet fragments. Progressively finer descriptions were then possible, e.g., as to iconography, epigraphic content, etc.

A simple lemma is based on a single set of parameters that is used to define a variant within a variable, e.g., “brown” within the variable “color.” With greater precision, a lemma may be based on the use of standards (e.g., the Munsell Color Chart variant “5YR8/2” within the variable “color” (see below, section 10, for a discussion of standards).

A complex lemma is a combination of simple lemmata and is used in the same way to define a set of variants within a variable. Thus, a ceramic “ware” is set of pertinent attributes for matrix, inclusions, manufacturing technique and measurements, each of which is defined separately as a simple lemma.

The current version is indicated by a code that relates the lexicon to the roster, thus LZmr-003 is the 3rd version of the lexicon applicable to the main roster, LZca-002 is the 2nd version of the lexicon applicable to the Ceramic Analysis roster.

Here the brief list of the universal codes:

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.4.1: Notes on the use of the universal codes

TEXT TO BE WRITTEN

Th. sentence to be completed ZG831 mDP.

It must be stressed that the lexicon is an open system (7.1), so that features that occur rarely may be named in an ad hoc fashion as necessary. For instance, such entries as “pile of bricks” may be used for a stack of brocks ready for use in constructing a wall. The only two constraints are that initial hyphen (-..) is reserved for incidentals, and that the maximum length allowed is 20 characters.

Labels that are more specifically typological are given in italics at the end of each group of definitions. These typological definitions may be given under B10, in addition to the more generic definition. Thus something defined first as co “collapse” may also be defined as bf “brickfall.” Conversely, if a wall has (even just partly) collapsed into an open pit, then the typological definition as “brickfall” would accompany the emplacement definition F2 (“Type of contact”, = tc) “fill in secondary context.” In addition, the qualification bf “brickfall” may also be entered under A5 (“Typological specific label” = sp), if distinct brickfalls are numbered sequentially, and under M1 (“Generic function [1st degree specificity]”) as a determination as to primary function.

In some cases, a typological definition that includes a higher degree of specificity may apply to more than one type of material – for instance, a sculpture may be in stone or bronze. For this reason, it is advisable, though it is not strictly required by the system, to give in every case the more generic definition, e.g., ma “metal artifact” as well as sc “sculpture.” (In the topical lists given below, section 7.5, a term like “sculpture” may accordingly be entered twice, under ma “metal artifacts” and under la “lithic artifacts”.) A more precise definition of the type of ware or material (e.g., arsenical bronze) will be found under the roster slot K3 (“Ware or material, species” = wm).

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.1: Features (stationary elements)

The main criterion for sorting the different types of features, in terms of emplacement, is the manner of alignment of the components of any given feature. Accordingly, four types can be distinguished:

1. Horizontal surfaces (7.5.1.1): the alignment is along a single plane.
2. Layering or buildup (7.5.1.2): this refers to the inert, i.e. gradual and unintentional, buildup that occurs on top of a surface, and which is characterized by the horizontal alignment of inclusions, each of which tends also to have a horizontal angle of repose.
3. Amorphous amassment (7.5.1.3): this refers to fills, dumping or collapse that result in the random alignment of inclusions. The term "fill" refers, strictly speaking, to a situation whereby the material "fills" a given space that is bounded, as is the case with discards dumped into a pit or walls collapsed inside a room. The category, however, subsumes also cases when the material is not bounded, but has piled up without containment, as with a brickfall that took place onto an open space.
4. Ordered aggregation (7.5.1.4): this refers to the ordered organization of components, such as the bricks within a wall. Wider nesting results in complex elements, such as when four walls can be understood as a self-standing construction (e.g., a grave). Larger structures (e.g., a house) are best considered under typology.

Note that, for ease of reference, the descriptive terms are taken from the depositional, rather than the emplacement, aspect that characterizes the feature – thus “fill” instead of something like “amorphous amassment.”

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.1.1: Horizontal surfaces

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.1.2: Layering or buildup

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.1.3: Amorphous amassment (fill, dumping, collapse)

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.1.4: Ordered aggregation (walls, installations)

[Is there any reason to keep these two tables separated? ZGy18 mDP]

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.1.5: Other features

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.2: Items (movable elements)

The main criterion for sorting the various types of artifacts is the ware or material of the specific item. This is in some respects analogous to the criterion used for features, in that the definition is based on the consistency of the item and on the identification of traits that are apparent even at a low level of specificity.

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.2.1: Metal (by S. Comelli)

Cf. also the more detailed section in the chapter (1.9) about special lexica.

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.2.2: Stone

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.2.3: Clay

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.2.4: Organic

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.2.5: Glass items

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.5.2.6: Other items

[Codes in red have been created in September 2022 for CONSERVATION – ZG911 mDP]

A full alphabetical listing follows:

One will find here only major categories that are easily recognizable during excavations. Finer definition, e.g., with regard to the nature of a metal to be redefined as a certain type of copper alloy, will be given as a special lexicon, of the type described presently in 21 [missing section? ZGy18 mDP].

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.7.1: Concepts

This lexical category is one of the most powerful in the whole grammar, on two grounds (see also 5.9 [missing section? ZGy18 mDP]; 31.2 [missing section? ZGy18 mDP]):

1. In the first place, the categorization given here aims at being exhaustive. In this respect, and unlike other lexica, it is meant as a closed system, to which no other terms can be added. It is conceived, in other words, as a paradigm with a precise structural configuration that excludes variations or expansions. Clearly, this is not a matter of semantics. To say that a jar sits in a pit, or that a pit contains a jar, are equivalent formulations of the same reality, semantic variations applicable to the same paradigmatic slot.
2. The second reason for the importance of this particular paradigm is that it serves as the basis for the construction of the depositional synopsis (the equivalent of the so-called "Harris matrix"), which is derived automatically from the data once their contact association has been observed and defined according to the terms of the paradigm (see below, 32). Besides the practical advantage of such a procedure, one must note the all important conceptual correlation that is thereby established between emplacement and deposition. The observation of physical contact is demonstrable and documentable, and on it rests a univocal conclusion as to the depositional processes that have brought about the situation as observed. In other words, the data as observed are physically present in the ground and can be described in relationship to volumes, but the inference that is drawn from it speaks to the depositional process in a way that is predefined and hence predictable. It should be noted that, except in the case of bonding (3b), it is always clear which of the two volumes is the subject of the verb and which is the object. What is crucial in terms of the depositional inference just mentioned is that the subject is always in a temporal relation of posteriority vis-à-vis the object (except for 3b). This also makes recording easier, in that during the recording phase the contact association is always entered only once, namely under the element that serves as subject.

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.7.2: Nature of the verbal categorization

Three additional points must be stressed:

1. The first is that each definition is meant to define a term that is part of a paradigm, i.e., a term that is in structural contrast with all the other elements of the paradigm. It matters little whether we say that some­thing "leans" or "is placed" against something else. What really matters is the paradigmatic definition that defines this process in contrast with all the others.
2. The second is that the exclusivity I claim may well be disproved. I argue for it on the basis of my (inductive) experience with data against which I have tested this paradigm over the years, and I also argue for it on the basis of a (deductive) logic that seeks to interpret a priori the universe of possible relationships. Corrections and additions are certainly possible. But what must be kept in mind is that they must be done systemically, i.e., with a view towards respecting the integrity of the correlations among all members of the set, and not in an ad hoc fashion that simply adds synonyms or paraphrases.
3. The third is that each and every relationship is in the active voice, and it entails a single subject and a single object. Descriptively, it of course makes sense to say that an accumulation is cut by a pit (in the passive voice). It is only a practical choice that privileges the active instead of the passive voice, because in so doing we achieve a uniformity that allows the person who does the recording to enter the relationship only once, when it affects the subject, leaving it to the programs to generate the converse for the object.

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.7.3: Definitions

Here I will define in detail the nature of each term of the paradigm in an order that reflects the temporal sequence inherent in each action, from the point of view of the object. Thus the process described under 1a “truncation” is the first event that can affect the object of the pertinent sentence (e.g., a floor that is truncated by a pit), and 5b describes the last event that can so affect it (e.g., a pottery lot sits in an accumulation overlaying a floor).

• 1a: to cut – Total truncation of a volume, affecting both the upper and the lower faces of the volume that is the object of the verb. As a result, the contiguity of the different portions of the truncated volume takes place only along the edges of the truncated volume itself.
• 1b: to intrude – Insertion into a volume, where only the upper face of the (object) volume is affected. As a result, the contiguity of the different portions of the truncated volume takes place in the lower part, as well as long the edges, of the truncated volume itself.
• 2a: to lean against – Partial contact of two volumes in their upper part, which implies that their lower part are not adjacent, whether the space in between is filled or not.
• 2b: to rest on – Partial contact of two volumes where the bottom of one is in contact with the top of the other.
• 3a: to abut – Adjacency of two volumes along one of their edges, entirely preserved, whereby no space is left between the two volumes, consequently without either void or fill. This implies intentionality of juxtaposition, and the contemporary presence of both volumes at the time that the abutting took place.
• 3b: to bond with – Interlocking of two volumes along their edges, entirely preserved. In a sense, the two volumes constitute therefore a single feature, and if they are kept separate it is because they are clearly distinguishable in terms of shape and other possible traits. This is the only case where one cannot identify a subject, since the two volumes are wholly reversible.
• 4a: to cover – Total superposition of one volume over the other, whereby the upper side of the lower is not in contact with any other volume.
• 4b: to overlay – Partial superposition of one volume over the other, whereby the upper volume does not entirely cover the lower, as when a large sherd straddles the top opening of a pit and the floor into which the pit has been cut.
• 5a: to cap – Matching of all the edges of one volume with the corresponding edges of the second volume, as in the case of a lid whose edges match exactly the opening onto which it is set.
• 5b: to sit in – Matching of all the sides of a given volume by the matrix within which it is embedded. This is typically the case with items found within an accumulation or a fill. Note that the tendency is to refer to this relationship by saying that the matrix contains the inclusion. However, the relative temporal sequence is inverted, in that the inclusion is deposited at a later point in time within the matrix, which, in fact, it helps to construe. Accordingly, I prefer to use the term "to sit in" which reflects the proper temporal sequence.

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

7.7.4: Synopsis

The following chart provides a synopsis of all ten types, with a sketch that represents graphically the situation intended. In these sketches [missing], the subject is highlighted with a dark, and the object with a light color. At the top is the last, and at the bottom the earliest, process that can affect the object.

     Chart 7-7
     Type of contact association

These codes are applicable for pottery shapes only, i.e., they are applicable when the variants for roster slot B10 = df “definition” include either cv or any of the following: bo, bt, di, go, ja, po, pl.

Note: the symbol >> means “considerably greater than.”

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

Overall shape

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

Rim

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

Base

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

Handle

Back to top: 7. The Main Lexicon

Other

For an explanation of the concepts behind the codes see above, section 6 (under O21O21).