Structuring: assemblages

Giorgio Buccellati – October 2025

Structuring: assemblages

We may say that in this stage we aggregate the disaggregation. Through the definition of formal traits, we can recognize assemblages of structures and items that share the same morphology.

What results is a structured universe, which can, to some extent, claim to reflect the semiotic universe of the ancients. Given the patterned regularity of certain “classes” of elements, we may reasonably infer that they were perceived as such, i. e., as classes, by the ancients in a way that parallels our own perception of the same classes – as in the following example.

An example: conical cups

A selection of 23 conical cups is shown on the right.
The chart below refers to a selected group of eight excavation units, giving the total of vessels and sherds and the totals and percent of conical cups.

unit	total	c.cups	%
A12	47,815	790	1.65
A15	62,117	552	0.88
A16	59,818	350	0.58
J1	44,732	262	0.58
J2	33,582	246	0.73
J3	13,301	13	0.10
J5	18,309	85	0.46
J6	17,182	80	0.46
total	296,856	2,370	0.80

Process: structuring

The structuring process is based on the identification of formal traits that are shared by a group of elements. What results is a structural whole, a “collection” that is objectively defined, and may be coeed a type. The validity of the process is independent from the total number of elements thatcan be identified

increases in the measurei in which the size of the collection increases: a type that includes only one exemplar is

Context: type or collection

Stationary features (such as walls) and movable items (objects and samples) are seen in their identity as individual elements but correlated to other elements of the same kind: they constitute an exhaustive and comprehensive collection for study purposes.

Method: typology and itegrative

The individual elements within an assemblage are seen to share formal traits, so that they form classes of elements. The notion of structuring refers to these classes, which are structural entities independent of their stratigraphic location, but grounded in the objective attributes that make it proper epistemic reality.

Typology – Once excavated, data can be assembled into meaningful wholes according to two distinct criteria. – Morphology ?

The first criterion looks at data depending on their intrinsic qualities: we construct typologies on the basis of inner-referential attributes, i. e., attributes that refer exclusively to the data as such, e. g., shape or material for ceramics, iconography for glyptics, paleography or linguistic analysis for texts.

Integrative – The second criterion looks at the data with a view to integrate them into a broader picture, in terms of a variety of extra-referental attributes: these include comparison with data from other excavated sites; analysis of materials with techniques such as Carbon 14 analysis; confrontation with the broader historical framework as defined by textual data. – Syntax ?

Semiotics

see referentiality

A12: cc second highest [percentage after jars – https://urkesh.org/MZ/A/A12/D/X/XF/FAM-CA.htm