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 considerations 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).

Replication of perception

It is important to note that through constructional analysis we come the closest possible to the ancient perception in relation to any given element (see also below). The process of producing the element in question is plausibly very similar, if not identical, to the process which an ancient builder or craftsman would undertake. The steps needed to produce an artifact have to be the same if the final product is to be the same, and thus the perception of what each of these steps entails would be very close to that of the ancient craftsmen. If not an exact replica of perception, there is certainly a closer echo here than with any attempt at replicating the setting and context of original use.

This is especially true for experimental archaeology, where not only the successive steps have to replicate those of the ancients, but also the tools, the primary materials, and even the general ambiance should be as close as possible to the original (see below for an example relating to salt production).

But even buildings archaeology, though essentially inferential, brings us closer to the perception of the ancient builders than what might be the perception of the ancient users. We do not replicate the steps, but even just considering them implies an understanding from within of the whole constructional process.

Chaîne opératoire and buildings archaeology

Chaîne opératoire

The “chaîne opératoire”¹ approach is described in detail by Federico Buccellati in his work on the Tupkish Palace, chapter 3 . An important aspect of the approach is the emphasis on the cognitive processes involved . While in the literature the method has been applied primarily to objects, especially lithics, “the understanding of process which these types of analysis make possible would be of great interest if the method could be successfully applied to architecture.”

To this end, one must note some major differences between objects and architecture.

“The greatest difficulty lies in the availability of data regarding the various steps in this process: while with a lithic ensemble there are finds which can be used to document each step, architecture as process tends to be much more complex.” (p. 80)
“The second difference between lithics and architecture is the diversity in the skills of the actors and the materials that they use, even when considering the ‘nested chains’. While in lithic production actors, tools used, operation locations and materials are rather limited, the study of architecture entails a much greater diversity.” (p. 82)
“Thirdly, the final link in an operational chain dealing with lithics is the moment of discard; the final link when applying this method to architecture is more difficult to distinguish. The moment of ‘discard’ of a building can be specifically pinpointed on only two occasions: first when it collapses, or when the roofing beams are removed or destroyed, or second, when excavating a building that was not finished – in that case one may find material piled up (e. g., bricks) that was not in the end used during construction. (p. 82)

In relationship to buildings archaeology, it is noted that the latter “aims at defining the constructional stages, understood in the sense of a temporal succession as it can be understood from an examination of the finished product. However, this approach […] does not pursue the full dynamics of the operational process that the chaîne opératoire entails” (p.83)

Buildings archaeology

“Building” or “buildings” archaeology² 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,³ should have plaid a major role in the development 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.

As mentioned, a full architectural treatment of the AP palace in the light of the “Chaîne opératoire” 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, Chapter 3, “The Elements and Process of Construction.” See in eLibrary.
The formalization of data in terms of buildings archaeology 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), forthcoming as a volume in the UMS series.
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 “cornerstone”) 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 this vast building, which implied a relatively short time of construction.

Experimental archaeology

The concept

In this case, the word “archaeology” refers only indirectly to the elements of material culture from the past: the focus is rather on a replica of the process through which these elements were produced in the first place. The “experiment” is not so much in duplicating buildings or objects as such, as it is on duplicating the very process through which they had come into existence.

The quality of the final product is a test of the validity of the process itself, but the real interest of the experiment is in the dynamics that makes it possible. In other words, the finished product is only a secondary goal (it is the primary goal in the creation of fakes where there is no intent at recording the manufacturing process, which in some case is even obscured through reproduction of weathering, never a goal of experimental archaeology). The primary goal is to assist in understanding the means and the skills that would have been necessary for the ancients to achieve their goal.

Perception of the whole

One merit of experimental archaeology is that is helps us focusing on the goal of the enterprise, the finished product, as a whole that is made possible through a well defined set of intermediate steps. What matters is the similarity, if not identity, of the finished product with the original product that one aims to replicate. The steps are necessary, and so is the proper sequence in which they have to take place, but the ultimate proof of the validity of the process is in the nature of the product.

A shared competence

There certain areas of production that have maintained great continuity with even the most remote past, such as the construction of small mudbrick houses or the manufacturing of ceramic vessels. One refers to this as “community of practice.”

In such cases the modern production process is in itself instructive, as with the case of a modern potter in Qamishli, shown in this video as he is building a kiln very similar in structure and material to those found in the excavations.

Grammar

A thoughtful reflection on the production process can have great relevance for an appreciation of the grammatical model used in the typological portion of the grammar. I will refer here to examples drawn from my own experience – three from Tell Mozan and one from Qraya.

Federico Buccellati, in his work already cited on the Tupkish palace (see the eLibrary, chapter 3) undertook a specific task of experimental archaeology in reconstructing portions of the walls that were no longer extant. He describes how the stones for the lower course would have been procured, and produced the bricks and mortar as needed. The entire process supplements, in a concrete manner, the “thought experiment” in which he engaged in terms of the Chaîne opératoire described above.
Jessica Scaciga reproduced several seals from their impressions as found in the Royal Palace of Tupkish. She did not use ancient materials or tools, but in her description of the procedure she shows how this helped in identifying with the perception of the ancient seal cutters. As they implemented, in creative ways, very minute details of the iconography, they were in effect sharing the principles of the typological definition set out in our grammar, with the added difficulty of having to render these details in the negative on a very small cylindrical base.
Yasmine Mahmoud worked closely with an established contemporary potter to reproduce human figurines from the Urkesh corpus. Her conclusions are revealing: “The production of anthropomorphic figurines was not the result of an amateur apprentice learning his or her craft, much less the result of unskilled individual making the object as a hobby, but the result of a well thought out pattern of artistic style and a professional artist at work. Furthermore, the homogeneity of the corpus in term of their naturalistic feel, makes the assumption of a workshop more plausible.”
One last example concerns a specific type of ceramic vessel, the beveled rim bowls, that have been shown to produce purified salt cases which could be shipped to urban centers at a certain distance from the production base (Hopkinson 2023 Experiment). The experiment took place at a site which had a vast number of beveled rim bowls even though it was not an urban center, nor near one. The site was both near the original source of raw salt and near abundant availability of water (the river Euphrates).

Notes

¹^ The term is rendered in English as “operational sequence,” “operational chain” and also as “behavioral sequence,” but it is noted (p. 60f) that “one aspect of the chaîne opératoire method which differentiates it from the ‘operational sequence’ or ‘operational chains’ of English language literature is the focus on the cognitive processes involved […] The chaîne opératoire, arising as it does from the French Humanist tradition, places more emphasis on the cognitive aspect of such modeling, as opposed to the sequence models more prevalent in the American tradition: such sequence models tend to focus more on material aspects.”.

²^ 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.

It may be noted that the English term “building archaeology” is the only one that may be interpreted as related to the action of building, rather than to a single specific building. However the term is at best ambiguous, and the term with the plural “buildings” ambiguity.

³^ On a personal note, I would like to mention Richard Haines and James Knudstad, who had been trained as architects and were the directors of the two expeditions to Nippur in which I took part, in 1962 and 1966 respectively. Their architectural understanding of the monumental 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 as they related to the whole.