coherence of the encoding manual
as presupposition of grammar
| The efficiency of the coding lies in the coherence of the larger structure which it generates. And from this has developed the notion of a “grammar” that articulates the vast number of categories into a single unified system, held together by specific distributional rules. It is this “grammar” that makes it possible for the data to be used in a script-like environment that transforms automatically the primary field records into a coherent whole (p. 5)
|
| objectivity at reason for emphasizing emplacement
|
we must question the objectivity of a record that privileges function and deposition over emplacement. Since we cannot observe function or deposition, how can we document it? What we think we document is in fact our understanding of function and deposition, our inference. These may well rest on faulty presuppositions. But we only publish the presuppositions that support our interpretation, so that an independent review is impossible. And this not because of an ethical lapse, but simply because it is the accepted method that we should publish function and deposition – emplacement being adduced only in support of such an understanding. It is exactly as if a text editor were to publish only those passages that support a given literary interpretation. If repeating the experiment is impossible in the sense of re-excavating what has been excavated, it becomes doubly impossible because we cannot even re-examine the initial observation. (p. 7)
|
| delay in publishing results from emphasis on function and deposition
| If one seeks to publish deposition and function, one is encouraged to wait until all the pieces are in, with the inescapable and regrettable consequence that the longer one waits, the better. By waiting and by excavating further, the larger picture comes more sharply into focus, the comparative material suggests new interpretations, and the analysis of the objects supports the stratigraphic understanding. The advantages of delay are such that one is hard put not to delay publishing: delays are de facto built into the logic of the system. More ominously, delay is not just a factor of time. It also affects the nature of the documentary process. The longer one waits the more convinced one becomes of one’s own interpretation, and thus the lesser the interest for the data that do not fit that particular interpretation. They may have been observed, they may have been recorded, but most of them do not get published. (p. 7)
|
| the global record as a properly digital publication, interlacing database and argument
| Digital recording is universally associated with databases. But databases are inherently static: they serve as an ordered juxtaposition of data, without any narrative built into them (Fig. 11). So they are building blocks that await a builder. My approach presupposes databases, but they are integrated into a systematic (and automatically generated) flow that results in a “Browser Edition.” For this reason, the record that is produced is not just a collection of data, to be consulted. It is, properly speaking, a publication with its own thread and argument, to be studied. This distinction, between consulting and studying, or between user and reader, is an important one. For all archaeological websites I know, the two functions are kept separate: one consults a database (when available), and one reads a PDF narrative file (which is digital only in terms of the medium with which it is conveyed). In the Urkesh Global Record, instead, the two functions are co-present from the very moment the record is
created: the record is, truly, born digital as a full-fledged publication. (p. 10)
|
| inferences about fucntion and depositoin are included in a narrative that interacts with the database
| For all that has been said above concerning the primacy of emplacement with regard to documentation and publication, we lay as much stress on deposition and function as any other archaeologist would. It is only that we keep the levels of analysis separate, and that we do not subordinate publication to some final (and ever postponed) interpretive closure. Accordingly, a number of fundamental inferences are an essential part of the Global Record, for instance, with the notion of stratum. As a category of time, a stratum is never observed, any more than a depositional process is (we do not observe the collapse nor the concomitant moments). What we observe is only space, and specifically spatial contacts between discrete elements. But the inference about a collapse and the concomitant factors (i.e., a stratum) is an integral part of our reasoning, and cannot be ignored. (p. 11)
|
| the argument is given in a narrative format that integrates the database
| For this reason, we address a reader as much as a user. This means that the digital volumes develop an argument, and do not just present a catalog of information. The argument is woven into the fabric of the Global Record in such a way that it can be pursued on its own merits, with the benefit of having available the full panoply of information on which the argument rests – as well as all the other evidence which might contradict it (Figs. 12-15). The best proof of the validity of our approach would be for a colleague to rapidly propose a counterargument, an alternative interpretation conflicting with ours, on the basis of the independent documentary base we have provided. This would mean coming as close as possible to the ideal of verifying an experiment by repeating it (p. 11)
|
| publication is not an epiphenomenon
| The effectiveness of distributional analysis is correlative to the universe of data available and to the way in which it has been categorized for an in-depth utilization of the data. Thus in the case of archaeology, publication (specifically with regard to emplacement and the depositional inference built on it) is not an epiphenomenon, it is rather constitutive of the evidence. For this reason, it is indispensable that the physical record be translated into a published record that guarantees full transparency and offers the totality, not just a selection, of the emplacement observations and the depositional inferences established in the process of excavation. (p. 3)
|
| hermeneutics of broken traditions
| The interpretive question is profoundly affected by the relationship of the excavator to a broken tradition. Hermeneutic theory rests on the assumption of continuity. The pre-understanding of a tradition means that there are living carriers with a specific competence that can colors and even defines the analysis. Such is not the case with archaeological cultures that have been severed from the stream of history. (p.3)
The theory of excavation as developed in the book proposes the special status of a severed human tradition. It is human, hence ours. Yet severed, hence irretrievably, it would seem, theirs. From semiotics to phenomenology to hermeneutics, a theory of excavation proposes a serious issue, one that must be faced archaeologically and only then can impact directly on the question of its re-appropriation for our sphere of understanding. It is the case that archaeology, instead of borrowing from philosophy, can uniquely contribute to it. (p. 4)
|