In the previous lesson we maintained that the first fascination of archeology lies, so to say, in the concreteness and the reality of discovery which certainly creates a special emotion in archeologists, namely in the protagonists of a discovery as well as in the viewers, namely in those who attend to the discovery. This is quite true, as proved by the common experience of the archaeologists responsible for the excavations, and of the visitors of excavations. But there is one additional aspect of great fascination in what is called the archaeologist’s profession. This aspect does not concern anymore the fascination represented by the strong, yet momentary emotion of the moment of the discovery, it is the fascination inherent in the archaeological procedures themselves: this fascination is not a momentary one, it is a durable one, because it depends of the peculiarities of the procedures of field archaeology, namely of the excavation. And this second aspect of fascination of archaeology probably explains, better than others, the attraction archaeology exerts on many young people. The profession of field archaeology is one of the very few in modern world implying a full interaction, conjunction, and complementary, between intellectual and manual work. Every archaeologist working in the field, who is directly engaged into the excavation, does not act only mentally or manually. This happens at every level of responsibility in the excavation, from the scholar with the large experience, who directs complex and articulated project of research in an urban center, to the young scholar responsible for the operations on a limited sector, and finally, certainly, also to the still young and unexperienced students who are taking part in the excavation for the first time as part of their training. The general strategy of a complex research project should imply both the research perspective and the results the archeologists aim at. The latter strongly depends on the former, since the adequacy of methods and the general frame of the exploration affect the results of an archaeological excavation. Starting from the main principle that archaeology implies the destruction of past evidences, the research must be as precise and accurate as possible: in this respect, archaeological methods of the exploration and recovering of past evidences have been suitably adapted for the interpretation of the past thanks to new technologies and important information gathered through natural sciences. As a consequence of their use of complimentary methods, say including preliminary considerations analyses of the archeological context via aerial and satellite photography to study the morphology of sites and neighboring landscape, aim at the collection of data that excavations can properly verify or even sometimes rectify. The study of the morphology of the site and the landscape through satellite images can in fact detect both the shape of area and changes occurred across time due to the anthropic activities, on one hand, and natural transformation of the environment, on the other. Geomorphology, and indeed hydrogeology, for what concerns the study of the presence of ancient water sources, show the natural features of an archeological region, and the exploitation of that area and sources by people, from the most ancient to recent times, according to a diachronic analysis of occupations and settlements. The recovery and registration of data goes through a process of classification with indication of types of objects and items, their interpretation as used in the archaeological context, and, of course, consideration about the chronology: in fact, if the process of stratigraphical archaeology is useful to recognize the single deposit and establish their correlation according to relative chronology, the study of manufacturing and chemical and physical composition of the items can eventually be used to establish an absolute chronology of both the archaeological objects recovered and the archeological context in general. In this respect, analysis of both organic and inorganic materials deliver precious information from the chronological point of view, at the same time, they also improve of our knowledge of the ancient technology and way of production; analysis on organic materials (wood, seeds, for example as you see here in the slide), are not only useful for 14C dating but they make the reconstruction of ancient diet and the environment features possible. In this respect, archaeologists take samples with great care and all measurements are particularly important to reconstruct the archaeological context and thus correctly interpret data and situations. The archaeologists’ main task is the stratigraphic digging with identification of the archaeological deposits, and, consequently, the excavation of each context planning times of each operation. All this must be accordingly arranged, fitting in with the need of accurate registrations of data and measurements that are the necessary for studying, reconstruction, and interpreting the archaeological evidence. The registrations of a single stratigraphic unit is the first important action: all stratigraphic units, with the collection and registration of materials, are then re-arranged to describe an activity and phase of life of a single building, or more generally, of an entire site. The superimposition of strata is the result of a dynamic process caused by the human activities that continuously occupied a site, and re-worked previous archaeological remains. For that reason, stratigraphy is the only correct process in excavating an archaeological context: through the process of excavation, that is destruction of the archaeological deposits, archaeologists can in fact understand the succession of phases and the use of places and settlements. For what concerns the reality of archaeological site in the ancient Near East the situation of tells, that are artificial hills, are a very interesting case study and good exercise in comprehending the importance of stratigraphy in archaeology. Those hills, in fact, are the results of artificial superimposition of strata of occupation that are continuously leveled by human actions: mud-bricks are the common material for construction in the Near East and the decay of architectural structures made of adobe creates the typical cone-shaped morphology of Near Eastern ancient settlements. Human activities and natural erosions change the original shape of the site and the careful stratigraphic excavation of a tell might, in fact, show the continuous human occupation of the site, on one hand, or the phase of abandonment of the settlement, on the other. The correct registration of a superimposition of strata, with the creation of a matrix that graphically explains the relations between the different contexts and archeological situations, comes to the creation of what we can label a relative chronology of the occupation of the settlement: after that, however, how can we precisely date an archaeological context? All data and items collected in the excavation are suitably divided and categorized according to specific features and classes: material culture, the products the archaeologists are recovering in the excavation, is properly studied, classified, and finally analyzed. Beyond the considerations of these stylistic features and nature of the single objects, other analysis are now currently employed by other archaeologists to solve the problem of chronology, in trying to establish a correct absolute chronology. The analysis of artifacts and material culture is the only way to get a whole comprehension of the time span of occupation of a site: not only, it is also the way to place in the space and time the situation of an archaeological context, explaining its function and cause. If stratigraphy gives a relative chronology, where the relative position of a strata is registered - for example, A covers B, so A is later than B - only suitable analysis on material can reveal information for the absolute chronology of the item itself and the archeological deposit where it was recovered. It might in fact occur, according to what archaeologists call an inverse stratigraphy, that the deposits with older materials cover deposits with later materials. When this situation is recognized, archaeological and historical interpretation of the whole excavated context and the knowledge of the entire settlement can in fact explain the reason of such a superimposition of deposits where the logic succession of old and late contexts can be overturned. Analysis of materials, getting information on the techniques of production as well as on the chemical and physical property of the raw materials, allow archeologist to go beyond the simple creation of series of types of objects according to shape and external features. Specific archaeometric analysis reveal in fact all intrinsic properties of the materials that have been used to shape and create the objects: so far, considerations of the evolution of the technology of ancient societies can be studied accordingly. At the same time, discovery of the chemical and physical properties of the raw materials has historical implication on the study of the origin of the raw materials and, consequently, on the ancient trade network of exchange and movement of both people and objects. In the experience of the different kinds of work in the modern world, it is well known that the great majority of professions, almost without exception, is characterized by the prevalence, or even the exclusivity, of the mental over the manual aspect, or vice versa, of the manual over the mental aspects; on the other hand, it is quite rare to practice a profession where the two aspects are equivalent with balanced presence. A long philosophical and sociological reflection, started by the middle of the 19th century, precisely singled out in the clear cut separation between mental and manual aspects of the work, the main cause of alienation of modern societies. With one formula, one may say that there is no archaeology in which mental and manual work are not closely related and there is no archeology where there is no development and progress of knowledge. In this respect the study of material culture from archaeological context is the result of both manual and mental works in a balanced process of interpretation of the archaeological materials in their original context with implication on chronology, the technological knowledge of ancient societies: specifically, archaeologists can carefully look at the development of urban centers by considering the stratigraphy of occupations; generally, archaeologists can also investigate the relationships of settlements in a particular region taking into consideration exchanges, contacts and movements of people in the landscape.
