Back to top: Typology
Introduction
The basic distinction between features and items is tied to a fundamental typological criterion. Features are elements whose typological identity is tied to a location, whereas the typological identity of items is independent of place. This distinction is simple enough that it can be applied without hesitation in practically every instance. It is especially useful during the first moment of excavation, when other distinguishing characteristics may not be as apparent, or specialists may not be present for identification.
As the analysis proceeds, finer typological distinctions will be introduced, which to some extent will find a place in the Urkesh [Urkesh Global Record](https://urkesh.org/main/main8.htm). A full typological discussion, on the other hand, will have to be included in other publications.
Back to top: Typology
Features
I use two distinguishing criteria to define the various types of features: the manner through which they have come into existence (through human or natural agency) and the function. A full list of all types will be found in the main lexicon, where one will find precise definitions – though in many instances the definition correspond simply to common use and common sense. Here I will only highlight briefly the main criteria through which the major types may be established. They are grouped according to the four major depositional categories outlined under stratigraphy.
| depositional definition | typological definition | type of origin (manufacture, etc.) as criterion | type of function as criterion |
| deposit | floors a and b | compaction and texture | walking |
| floors c and d | compaction and texture | unintended | |
| installation | wall | ordered arrangement of bricks and/or stones, reaching a vertical height | to form, with other walls, an enclosure that defines a space, and often to support a horizontal element (roof) that closes that space |
| disaggregation | brickfall | collapse of standing wall, with direction of fall | either reconstruction or abandonment |
| brickmelt | erosion of brickfall through rain or wind | abandonment | |
| discard | fill | intentional dump within contained space | to limit dispersion of material no longer used |
Back to top: Typology
Architecture and the built environment
Identifiable structures can be divided into architectural types, depending on a number of criteria. Even if not complete (because not completely excavated or because partly destroyed) the Urkesh Global Record describes these structures as “aggregates” (this is the technical term under which they are indexed). In the “architecture” entry under “TYPOLOGY” these structures are described according to the standard categories (e.g., room, house, grave. etc.).
I also subsume the built environment under the same entry. This includes, for instance, open spaces within the urban texture, such as a street or a square.
Back to top: Typology
Objects (ceramics, glyptics, etc.)
The typology of movable items (i.e., as mentionded, items whose typological identity is not tied to a given location) is well understood and highly differentiated. Within the Urkesh Global Record there is a first level treatment of this typology, which will of course be the subject of a more in depth and specialized analysis in future treatments.
The broad categories into which we subdivide, in our primary treatment, the various types of objects, are the standard ones. They are in effect based on a variety of intersecting criteria, some of which are listed below by way of example.
| criterion | types of artifacts |
| type of material | ceramics, lithics, metal artifacts |
| figurative style | glyptics, choroplastics (figurines) |
| epigraphic component | tablets, seal legends |
Some of these categories have a large number of elements (up to 30,000 and more sherds are common for any given excavation Unit), and so an analysis of the entire inventory will normally lag behind the publication of the Urkesh Global Record of a given Unit. It is also not possible to have specialized analysts in every category (say lithics or choroplastics) present every season. In this case, subsequent analyses will be included in later updates of the pertinent Unit’s Urkesh Global Record.
Back to top: Typology
Bio-archaeology
The three major categories are human, faunal and botanical remains. Given the great quantity especially of the faunal remains, and the specialized knowledge they all require, a full typological analysis of these data will also normally lag behind in terms of publication.
Back to top: Typology
Typology ans stratigraphy
It should be stressed that a stated aim of the Urkesh Global Record is to fix in published form, first and foremost, the stratigraphic context in which the data fit. Such immediacy is the only way, I feel, to bring us closer to the ideal of objectivity – the goal being for the original observations about emplacement and deposition to be public before and instead of being filtered through a functionallu and typolically oiented crystallization process. At the same time, the system allows for practically unlimited possibilities to include at any later date ther results of in-depth typological analysis.
Back to top: Typology