The Urkesh Global Record (Version 1, Beta release)

I. Theory. Broken traditions: the global record

The nature of the record – 2

Giorgio Buccellati – December 2024

Back to top: The nature of the record – 2

Globality – revised

The “global” record is such primarily with regard to emplacement. Once the elements are extracted from their locational context in the matrix of the soil, they are be studied according to criteria that are not properly archaeological, but are of course indispensable to achieve a full semiotic and hermeneutic understanding of the data.

At that point, the notion “globality” takes on a different aspect: pertinent observations refer to a target (this wall, this sherd, etc.) that has been extracted from iuts locational context and is available as such for interpretation. What remains “global” is the fact that any such item, however small and seemingly insignificant, is designated as a target: it is what we called the “dignity of the fragment” (article).

At that point, each element that has been so defined remains open for further analysis, in an open ended fashion: it is no longer necessary to keep every observation as originally made, which also impacts on globality.

We may distinguish three stages in this post-emplacement study of the elements, and we will illustrate this using as an example A16.108, a sealing with seal impression, giving the chronological sequence of procedures as implemented.

Back to top: The nature of the record – 2

1. Identification at excavation time

  • September 11, 2002: the object is excavated and the data are given in the stratigraphic record.
  • September 11, 2002: on the same day, the object is curated by the conservator.

Back to top: The nature of the record – 2

2. First typological definition

  • September 21, 2002: a few days later, a comprehensive typological definition is given by the glyptic specialist
  • September 24, 2002: a finished drawing is produced.
  • September 29, 2002: The object is brought back to the field for a photo of the place where it was found

Back to top: The nature of the record – 2

3. Subsequent analysis

  • July 25, 2004: a full set of studio photographs is taken
  • 2004: the object is discussed in an article published MDOG 136 pp. 31-32 (linked here).
  • November 2005: the seal impression is included in a synthetic overview of the A16 glyptics
  • June 2025: the seal impression is included in the Glytpics typological book.
  • December 2025: a full compositional analysis is given based on the glyptic roster and lexicon

Back to top: The nature of the record – 2