Archaeology: constructional

Giorgio Buccellati – July 2026

The grammatical aspect of constructional analysis

The grammar we describe for the typological part of contextual archaeology is obviously based on our understanding of the elements that have come down to us. The regularity of the patterns is a factual datum to such an extent that we may reasonably infer that “our” grammar was “their” grammar as well. In other words, we share with the ancient users the same epistemic understanding of the elements of material culture that are extant for us today.

This is supported by various considereations that are subsumed under the category of semiotics, in particular with regard to semantics. If in the excavations we find a structure we know to have been named abi or an object named altanni, and if we have a textual description of how they functioned and were used, we then have a certain validation of the typological understanding of these elements reached on purely formal grounds.

The manufacturing phase was a moment when awareness of the purpose and function of structures and objects would have been particularly keen. An architect or a seal cutter was bound to have a clear sense of what the “customer” wanted, and had to adhere to certain shared standards and canons – which is precisely what the grammar aims to define.

Hence an insight into the constructional moment opens a significant window onto the perceptual dimension of the grammar. The assumption is that creating an element from scratch implies an adherence to the same principles that we recognize as being at the foundation of the grammar.

Two well established fields of study are based respectively on

inferences from the available evidence (buildings archaeology) and
actual duplication of the original production process (experimental archaeology).

Buildings archaeology

The concept

“Building” or “buildings” archaeology.¹ developed in function of complete standing monuments or buildings, and infers the sequential stages of the construction process on the basis of both the direct evidence of distinctive structural features and the indirect evidence of pertinent documents when available.

The construction history of a given architectural unit may be considered a special branch of depositional history as we know it in archaeology. Depositional history seeks to reconstruct the moments in the sequence by which things have come to be where they are in the ground. COnstructional analysis does the same with regard to a structure in which sequential construction moments can be identified.

The constructional or developmental analysis of architecture has developed into a specific discipline of its own, for which there is a considerable literature. It applies primarily to buildings that are fully or almost fully extant, and for which there is no concomitant stratigraphic history of deposits built against and on top of the structure itself. In this case, as known particularly from more recent periods of history (such as medieval archaeology), there are primarily two sources of information, the internal analysis of the monument and the study of written documents that relate to the construction phases. The former (reconstruction of time sequencing on the basis of spatial contacts) is intrinsically related to what archaeology has always been doing. In most archaeological contexts, on the other hand, written texts explicitly relating to the construction are not extant, but the associated evidence gained from accumulations that cover floors or abut walls provide similar information. In this respect, archaeological analysis has consistently been concerned with the structural history of a building. But what buildings archaeology can contribute is a finer sensibility for precisely the architectural dimension.

The stratigraphic context

A developmental analysis of standing architecture is quite different from that of buildings exposed through excavations. In the first instance, we have an architectural whole that is handed down in its integrity to a researcher who can walk into a standing structure. This is conceptually quite different from a situation where a thick matrix of deposits has come to envelop the entire structure over a period of many centuries, so that not a single stone is visible when we first approach the site. During this span of time, substantial adaptations took place in the architectural details of access and circulation, of constructional repairs and changes. In addition, the entire organization of the built environment would generally undergo changes, even when one finds the remarkable persistence of tradition that we reconstruct for ancient Urkesh.

In an excavation, all of this (structural and constructional adaptations, reorganization of space, persistence of basic underlying traditions) is derived from a stratigraphic analysis that provides a rich set of data relating to the life and history of the building, in its use and then its abandonment. It is through this, even more than through inferences about constructional moments, that we can identify the unifying points of view that gave coherence to the whole of this particular built environment.

Architectural competence

We may say that stratigraphic analysis adds a dynamic dimension to what is otherwise, in a standing structure, a static superposition of constructional traces. In other words, a stratigraphic context yields, as it were, a buildings archaeology at the power of two, i. e., one that analyzes structures both dynamically (stratigraphy) and statically (traditional buildings archaeology).

This points, in effect, to a broader issue, namely the need, in an excavation, for architectural sensibility in the first place. It is not only desirable, but needed if one is to recognize the proper architectural dimension of a structure, particularly a complex one (a palace, a temple) or an urban context (private houses, defined opens spaces such as streets or squares). It is no accident that archaeologists with an architectural background, such as Robert Koldewey or Pinhas Delougaz,² should play a major role in the devleopment of the field in the early and middle 20th century.

Grammar

Buildings archaeology is especially useful when dealing with architectural complexes, and I will cite here three examples from Urkesh.

The fomalization is seen especially in the categorization of the specific labels, see in particular the case of JP. Here the methods of buildings archaeology are explicitly defined and applied in detail to the construction of the great Plaza fronting the Temple Terrace. A fuller description of the system is found in the doctoral dissertation by Patrizia Camatta, The Temple Terrace of Tell Mozan/Urkesh (Syria). Architecture, Typology and Comparative Analysis of Mesopotamian High Temples (see in the eLibrary), forthsoming as a volume in the UMS series.
A full architectural treatment of the AP palace is found in the volume by F. Buccellati, Three-dimensional Volumetric Analysis in an Archaeological Context. The Palace of Tupkish at Urkesh and its Representation, especially Chapter 3, “The Elements and Process of Construction.” See in eLibrary.
A particularly pertinent example is found in the case of the Tupkish Palace. During the excavations of the formal wing of the palace we found a tablet (A15.321) inscribed with an architectural plan showing three rooms and a special marker. I have interpreted this tablet as the surveyor’s guide for the masons who were building the palace: the special marker indicates a benchmark (a “cornersotne”) from which the builders would take measurements to set in the ground the points marking the corners of the walls. There would have been several other such tablets, for each of the many sectors of the palace, and this would explain what we had already noticed during excavation, i. e., the remarkable structural coherence of thsi vast building, which implied a relatively short time of construction.

Experimental archaeology

The concept

Grammar

In principle, fakes belong here, except that there is no intent at recording the manufacturing process, which in some case includes the reproduction of weathering.

stone wall in AP (fAB book)

seals – very important for grammar

TFH

Notes

¹^ The English terms refer to what is known in German as “Bauforschung,” in French as “archéologie du bâti” or “archéologie du mur,” in Italian as “archeologia dell’architettura.” These labels define archaeology in terms of the object, seen as enshrining the evidence of the sequence of actions that brought it into its final shape. The term “constructional” refers more explicitly to this process.

²^ On a personal note, I would like to mention Richard Haines and James Knustad, who were the directors of the two expedition to Nippur in which I took part, in 1962 and 1966 respectively. Their understanding of the monumantal ziggurat complex impressed me greatly, as well as their ability to guide the efforts of the individual skilled workmen (the “Shirgatis”) in bringing out the minute details.