Broken traditions

Back to top: Broken traditions

Archaeology as the recovery of broken traditions

If we take archaeology to refer, in a strict sense, to the excavation of a matrix that includes a multitude of fragments, sometimes preserved in their original aggregation (as with a burial) but for the most part disjointed from each other, we have by definition a body of data that is no longer part of a living tradition that can interpret the data.

We deal, in other words, with a broken tradition: one that has no living carriers, no inheritors of a culture of which we have only fossils, mute witnesses of a life once lived. The data are mute, but they are indeed witnesses. The task of the archaeologist is to record the document and understand what it witnesses.

On this see Critique, articles

Back to top: Broken traditions

The process of recovery

The question how can we claim objectivity in aiming to ascertain what meaning these data had for the then living carriers, and thus what meaning they may in turn have for us. We do this by going through three steps.

1. The data must be recorded in their brokenness, and this is the task of grammar. Each element that is excavated is identified according to a set of criteria that is independent of potential meaning – as to its location (emplacement) and formal traits (typology)
2. One must then identify patterns that correlate the fragments in their disaggregation, and this is the task of semiotics. The regularity of patterns cannot be accidental, and thus we can plausibly infer that the clustering of elements signals an original intention.
3. Correlating this to a variety of other data, from the excavation and beyond, is the task of hermeneutics: what was the meaning of what has been recovered, both for the ancients and for us?
   
   

As an example we may look at the abi found in A12.

1. Grammar: permanently placed stones form a cylindrical enclosure; it a number of superimposed layers, each containing a variety of movable items, all of which are documented individually and in terms of their location.
2. Semiotics: the clustering of animal bones shows an unusual pattern, with a preponderance of bones of piglets and puppy dogs; this pattern is repeated in all superimposed layers, from which one can infer that the structure served a specific purpose over a long period of time.
3. Hermeneutics: comparing these data with written texts from Hittite culture, which is known to be related to the Hurrian population at Urkesh, it can be concluded that this structure served as a channel to the Netherworld, known in Hurrian as abi.

Back to top: Broken traditions

Referentiality

The three steps of the process of recovery may be seen in terms of referentiality. Each element that is excavated today is frozen in a matrix that does not refer the life the element had when in use. This “reference” is what archaeology aims to recapture. And the three steps of the process of recovery we have just outlined may be seen in this perspective as follows.

1. Grammar: no referentiality. – The grammar operates on criteria that are not assumed to reflect categories operative for the ancients. For example, the color of a ceramic sherd, its ware, its dimensions are defined by our grammar with categories that are extraneous to the ancient mindset: the Munsell color system, a chemical definition, the metric scale. This does not obviously mean that the ancients had no awareness of color, ware and dimensions; only that our "grammar" is structurally different. It operates on the basis of a codification system (for colors), chemical principles (for wares), metrical precision (for dimensions) that are all extraneous to the very mindset of the ancients, and do not take that mindset into account.
2. Semiotics: object referentiality. – We can hold in one hand a whole ceramic object like the one shown on the right, we can pour liquid in it and drink from it. These inferences may be regarded as obvious, and are formulated as soon as the cup appears – including our term "cup" which is already referential, and thus "semiotic" in nature. The object is referentially present to us as it was to the ancients, and in this case the language equivalence (e. g., Akkadian kāsu ~ English "cup") applies properly.	A14.119
3. Hermeneutics: subject referentiality. – What emotional response would the object evoke in the subject holding it? Two seal impressions give us a clue: a cup is held in one hand by the king in one case and by the queen in the other, in a scene that indicates conviviality but points also to a special celebratory atmosphere. This takes us closer to the perception that the ancients had of this item – being used for ceremonial occasions, when the cup acquired a special meaning, to the point of being rendered several times on the seals of queen Uqnitum.	TGL^qu2 TGL^qu4

Back to top: Broken traditions

-etic and -emic

The distinctions made above with regard to referentiality reflect in part the distinction between -etic and -emic approaches, where the latter implies a culture specific understanding and definition of phenomena, and the former does not (or rather, it is specific to our culture, not to the target culture). See articles.