A Grammar of the Archaeological Record (Version 2, Beta release)

Introduction

Conclusion

Giorgio Buccellati – January 2025

When preparing for publication A Critique of Archaeological Reason it felt like walking along a double trajectory, that of theory and that of practice. In the preface (p. xiii) I wrote about “my long-standing confrontation with fieldwork and my ongoing reflection about it. It is the most concrete of situations, in which the urgency of practical matters and the scope of cultural results is often so daunting as to rob us of the mental space we need to reflect on theory. And yet reflect we must. […] It was also an ongoing process. The act of excavation had its own rhythm: one could not stop and get off. Thus the theoretical reflection had to proceed apace. What ensued was an intense cross-fertilization between practice and theory.” And I spoke (p. xiv) of “the conviction that abstraction, properly conceived, was on the side of concreteness.”

This cross-fertilization and this welding of abstraction and concreteness find their realization in this Grammar and in the Digital Operations Manual, which together serve as a counterpart of the theoretical essay given in the Critique. Along with the Urkesh Global Record website, they show how to achieve the theoretical goals stated in the Critique.

Development of the grammar went hand in hand with the training of the staff to implement its objectives. If the long gestation of the project could unfold in spite of the darkness which seemed to loom on the horizon, much of the credit is due to the patience and loyalty of the staff. To them goes my heartfelt gratitude. This is particularly true because, in retrospect, one can say that the system was aimed since it was first conceived towards a digital implementation such as has become possible only with the introduction of such environmental conditions as browsers, large data storage, digital photography, graphic capabilities – none of which was available during the first several years of my work.

***


During my fieldwork, the recurrent physical proximity to ancient city walls often emerged for me as a metaphor – just like the system presented here, a city wall makes sense only if it is complete, without a breach however minimal: a partially completed building can be used, but not a partially completed city-wall.

Back to top: Conclusion