The experience of working on the publication of Unit A6 has represented for me a unique and distinctive model for engaging with archaeological artifacts that I did not excavate in the field. Over time, these artifacts became familiar to me through the expedition’s digital archive and my continuous interaction with the excavation data. The Urkesh Global Record (UGR) allowed me to transcend the temporal and spatial distance from the moment of excavation, enabling me to understand both the results of the excavation and the decisions made in the field. The close collaboration with Dr. Lorenzo Crescioli, alongside Professor Raju Kunjummen during my dissertation work, played a crucial role in clarifying the original contexts and discussing points of ambiguity and interpretation, both through the website and the original excavation documents, which served as primary sources authored by Professors Raju Kunjummen and Jamal Omar.
Despite their great scholarly importance, these sources sometimes constituted a challenge, as some of the documents were unclear or difficult for me to understand, particularly since I had not participated directly in their preparation or in the excavation work at the site. This ambiguity was often related to the nature of field documentation and the use of abbreviations. In this regard, the role of Dr. Crescioli was especially significant, as his guidance helped clarify methodological issues and interpret the field documentation, enabling me to overcome these difficulties and to reconnect the digital data with their original archaeological context.
This work was not merely a presentation of the data, but an analytical process that connected me with the past and with excavation methodologies in which I had not participated. It also re-established the relationship between the artifacts and their spatial and functional contexts, allowing me to transform Unit A6 from a collection of fragmented layers and finds into a coherent archaeological narrative. This, in turn, enabled me to engage in a parallel intellectual excavation process and reaffirmed that archaeological knowledge can continue to evolve and deepen even after the conclusion of fieldwork.
Back to top: Conclusion