0247 Chapter seven (C7) discusses entanglements and affordances.  These topics do not come to mind when considering the dig at Catal Hoyuk.

Spoken words are a little quirky.

I suppose that there are nuanced differences between “dig” and “excavation”.

One must not dismiss the sensitivities (and the vocabulary) of others.

0248 The author (S2C7) recalls an episode in a book by art historian and critic, Ernst H. Gombrich (1909-2001). The “H.” is for Hans Josef.  Trained in art history at the University of Vienna, he held academic appointments at Oxford University, Harvard and Cornell, while working at the Wahrburg Institute until his retirement in 1976.  His most popular book is a text, published in 1950, titled, The Story of Art.

0249 Another book, The Sense of Order, contains the episode, where an expert sums up the shift of artistic expression during dynastic Egypt as trending from “tactile” to “optic”.  In a similar way, after the Middle Ages, the art of the West trends from “religious” to “decorative”.  Gombrich wonders whether the same laws of stylistic development apply to these two observations?

I ask, “Was there a change in artistic dispositions_1a?”

0250 If so, a change of artistic disposition would not influence content-level matter_2am as much as the content-level form_2af.

0251 Gombrich mentions another art critic who distinguishes Renaissance from Baroque styles of art on the basis of how each made him “inwardly dance”. 

0252 To me, this art critic has processed so many works of art_2cm, that he constituted a perspective level form_2cf (SV_i) that stands for an inward matter_2am (SO_i) in regards to assessing a historical work of art_3a operating on his potential of ‘being disposed to dance’_1a (SI_i).

0253 In this example, the interventional sign-relation manifests.  The sign-vehicle is the perspective-level form_2cf.  The sign-object is content-level matter_2am.  The sign-interpretant is the content-level normal context_3a (structure_3a) operating on its potential (dispositions_1a).

The interventional sign concludes one three-level interscope and initiates another.  Perspective-level form_2cf “writes” content-level matter_2am by… how?.. precipitating an appropriate normal context_3a and potential_1a?

0254 Here is another way to diagram the interventional sign-relation.

0255 In S4C7, Hodder discusses burials in the floors of the houses and the recovery of (some, not all) heads for plastering and display.  The honored skulls uphold the walls of the house (so to speak).

0256 Here is a picture of the associated interventional sign-relation.

0257 The reconstitution of the head long after burial_2cf (SV_i) stands for the ancestor as matter_2am (SO_i) in regards to the structure of a display_3a operating on the potential that ‘the ancestor is disposed to bless the family’_1a (SI_s).

The interventional sign resolves a confounding. The perspective-level thing is {recovery_2cm [substantiates by way of affordance] the reconstitution of a deceased’s head_2cf}_2c.  Plus, the form of reconstitution_2cf [entangles] the ancestor as matter_2am.

0258 Let me step back and present the perspective-level thing_2c from point of view of its three-level interscope.

The reconstituted head_2cf entangles the ancestors as matter.

0259 The associations in the above figures are not fixed.  They are not models.  They are guesses as to what the noumenon must be.

If the above figures represent the noumenon of the handling of the dead in Catal Hoyuk, then do the observed phenomena allow one to build an archaeological model that makes sense?

0260 Chapter 8 (C8) offers two examples regarding the onset of domestication in China and the Middle East.  The reviewed research covers radiocarbon dates prior to 6800BC.  These dates do not cover the strangest entanglement of all: the semiotic transition that starts with the Ubaid of southern Mesopotamia.

Consider Razie Mah’s four blogs, Looking at Melinda A. Zeder’s Article (2025) “Unpacking the Neolithic”, published on January 1, 2026.

0276 Chapter nine (C9) is on method. Chapter ten (C10) considers an “entangled string theory” as well as other approaches.  Chapter 11 (C11) draws a short conclusion.

All these chapters deal with the issue of what the noumenon must be, in order to conduct the most informative archaeological inquiry.

0277 In this examination, I conclude that the conceptual apparatus of entanglement corresponds to a phenomenological presentation of what the noumenon of archaeology must be.

0278 The basis for such a conclusion is found in Razie Mah’s four part e-work Biosemiotics as Noumenon (2025).

0279 Here is a picture of the Positivist’s judgment, which ground natural scientific inquiry.

0280 A judgment brings what ought to be into relation with what is.   The three elements are what is, what ought to be, and relation.  In the above figure, the positivist intellect belongs to the relation (and the relation is imbued with the category of thirdness). The empirio-schematic judgment belongs to what ought to be (and is imbued with the category of secondness).  The dyad of the noumenon and its phenomena belongs to what is (and is imbued with the category of firstness).

0281 From this, I would expect a benefit from a robust conceptualization of the noumenon.

Otherwise, the noumenon is simply the thing that must be responsible for the phenomena.

But, what does that imply?

Obviously, one wonders whether what one is measuring really corresponds to phenomena of a real noumenon or an imaginary one.

0282 In other words, Hodder’ entanglement is relevant because it reveals what the noumenon must be.

Here is my picture of his theory as an exercise in thingness, flowness and affordance.

0283 Chapter 9 discusses methods as if the noumenon is not under question.  He mentions tanglegrams (S2C9), formal networks (S3C9), sequencing concerns (S4C9) and other diachronic aspects (S5C9), as well as other interpretations (S6C9) without mentioning that… well… what exactly is the thing itself?

0284 I wonder whether all the other approaches elucidated in chapter ten (C10) confront the conundrum that I am trying to articulate.

If scientific appreciation of what the noumenon must be stands within the Overton window of Hegel’s and Marx’s things, then what if that is not enough?

0044 Chapter 3 of Dr. D. Basak’s book concerns the invention of writing.

A grand cognitive leap takes three steps (E, F and G).

0045 At first (E), cuneiform ideograms, incised onto carefully prepared clay tablets, reported transactions, not unlike journal papers.  Indeed, some early modern journals take the label “transactions”, such as the “Transactions of the Philological Society”. An ideogram presents an icon of its referent.

0046 According to Charles Peirce (1839-1914), an “icon” is a sign-relation whose sign-object is based on the principle of similarity, imagery and so forth.  An “index” is a sign-relation whose sign-object is based on the principle of contiguity, pointing, indication and so forth.  A “symbol” is a sign-relation whose sign-object is based on the principle of habit, convention, rules, law and so forth.

0047 Later (F), the ideograms become indexes for spoken-word sounds.  In comparison, journal publications become indexes of scholarly productivity to academic deans, whose appointments represent an elite standing above the tenured (or tenure-track) scholar.

0048 Beck et al.’s sections 3, 4 and 5 (Publishing Dynamics in North America, Publishing Pathways, and Publishing Dynamics in Latin America) discuss the transition from journal article as an icon (of research content) to an index (of academic productivity).

Was the transition inevitable?

Once the bureaucrat (like the cuneiform-writing scribe) realizes the indexal principle, then there is no return to the original configuration.  Journal articles as indexes usurp (maybe, “re-organize”) journal articles as icons.  Rules and guidelines abound in the use of indexes to grant tenure.

Finally (G), the icon and index are repackaged as a symbol representing a public good.

0049 Here is a diagram.

0050 Surely, the above comparison is not so far fetched.

The comparison says that both cuneiform and journal articles pass through distinct historical unfoldings.  First and foremost, they are pictures of content.  Then, they become indications, bound by rules and guidelines.  Finally, these pictures (meanings) and indicators (presences) support a symbol (message).  The unfolding engages content, situation and perspective.

0051 The progression calls to my mind the category-based nested form corresponding to the definition of a spoken word, as presented at the opening of Razie Mah’s e-book, How To Define The Word “Religion”.

The normal context of definition₃ brings the actuality of a spoken word₂ into relation with the potential of ‘meaning (content), presence (situation) and message (perspective)’₁.

0052 For chapter 3 of Dr. D. Basak’s book, the spoken term₂ is “cuneiform writing”.

For sections 3, 4 and 5 of Beck et al., the spoken term₂ is “journal article”.

0053 The comparison between the early chapters of a (potentially AI-generated) book and a cry from the heart of professional archaeologists early in their careers tells me that the emergence of new specializations during the Ubaid, Uruk and Early Dynastic periods in Sumer are similar to the historical emergence of professional archaeologists in modernity.

0054 I wonder whether the emergence of civilization in the land between the rivers millennia ago is really due to the opportunities and the dangers of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.

Could it be due to a dynamic still unfolding in history in the present day?

0055 Consider the two confoundings that seem to be embedded within the potential that underlies a definition of a spoken term₁.

I take Basak’s treatment of cuneiform as the example.  The reader can translate this into Beck et al.’s treatment of journal articles.

0056 A first confounding will resolve into the content and the situation levels of an interscope (a category-based nested form composed of category-based nested forms).

For the following hylomorphe, various things (as matter) substantiate cuneiform ideograms (as form).  At the same time, the spoken words associated to the names of things (as form) entangle the rebus principle (as matter).

0057 A second confounding will resolve into the situation and the perspective levels of an interscope.

Again, the hylomorphe corresponds to the two real elements that characterize Peirce’s category of secondness.

For the following hylomorphe, the word-sound (in speech-alone talk) indicates the presence of ‘something’ (as matter) that substantiates the situation realness of a transaction (as form).  Spoken words as content that are expected to be situated as transactions.  Then, that situation-based transaction (as form) entangles a perspective-based message pertaining to the transaction that has taken place (as matter).

0058 For Beck et al. these confoundings indicate how vulnerable their occupations are, given what is stated in their own article.  Not only are young experts in archaeology being crushed by competition within their own disciple (a publication arms-race corresponds to the situational transaction), but they also face the challenges of a new technology (represented by an individual or a special-interest using AI) that may harvest their articles in the privatization of a “public good”.

0082 The differentiation of Nammu?

Chapters 4 and 5 of Basak’s book present Sumerian origin myths of the world and of humans.  These myths are recorded in cuneiform tablets recovered by archaeologists.  It is amazing that the tablets survived.

0083 I start with the world.

In the beginning, Nammu is the uncreated oneness.

Oneness describes Peirce’s category of firstness.  Firstness is the realm of possibility.

0084 According to Peirce, all existence can be portrayed in terms of three categories.  He names the categories on the basis of the number of elements.  Thirdness has three.  Secondness has two. Firstness has one.  Each category exhibits its own logic.  Thirdness follows the logics of exclusion, complement and alignment.  Secondness exhibits the logics of contradiction and noncontradiction.  Firstness is inclusive and allows contradictions.  Finally, each higher-level category prescinds from the adjacent lower category.  Thirdness prescinds from secondness.  Secondness prescinds from firstness.

0085 The category-based nested form is one of the simplest examples of thirdness.

Thirdness bring secondness into relation with firstness.

A triadic normal context₃ brings a dyadic actuality₂ into relation with the possibility of ‘something’₁.

Here is a picture.

0086 To me, Nammu, the undifferentiated god at the start of the Sumerian origin myth, corresponds to firstness.

Here is a diagram.

0087 The Sumerian creation story continues.

Nammu differentiates into two real elements, An (a male principle and the waters above) and Ki (a female principle and the waters below).  These occupy the slot for actuality₂ when the normal context is differentiation₃.  They embody a principle of duality, undergird by the lingering unity of Nammu, from which they came.  The contiguity between An and Ki bears the label “embrace”.

0088 Then, An and Ki conceive.  Ki gives birth to Enlil.  Enlil goes about separating his parents.

[Embrace] gives way to [the domain of Enlil].

0089 Here is a picture.

0090 An₂ associates with the celestial domain.

Ki₂ associates with the mundane domain.

Enlil’s domain₂ is the contiguity between heaven and earth.

0091 I ask, “Does this sound like a nested form that is ’caused’ by living in the fertile land between two capricious, creative and destructive rivers?”

Or, does this look like something that anthropologists have never looked at before?

0092 Enlil₂ is the god of the air, as well as the storm.  His realm is pure substance, standing between the fixed domains that people can picture and point to, the sky (An) and the earth (Ki).

Does that substance have anything to do with rivers or land or anything material?

Or does that substance entangle rivers and land and grain and clay and all sorts of materials?

0093 How can separation, as a potential, empower Enlil’s domain which a substance in the realm of actuality?

0094 What happens next?

0095 The potential of ‘a separation that performs as a substance’₁ supports further differentiation.

An (the sky)₂ becomes the normal context₃ for Utu (the sun)₂ and the Nanna (the moon)₂ who arise from the potential of ‘separation as a substance’₁.

Ki (the earth)₂ becomes the normal context for Ninhursag (the mountains)₂ and Ereshlugal (the underworld)₂ who arise from the potential of ‘separation as a substance’₁.

0096 Of course, Sumerian mythology does not describe the creation of minor gods in precisely this way.  So, I extrapolate from the origin myth at hand.

Here is a picture.

0096 [The domain of sky] is the substance that arises from a celestial potential of ‘a separation that performs as a substance’₁.

0097 I ask, “What domain of the sky somehow captures a celestial phenomenon that associates to ‘a separation that performs as a substance’₁?”

Is rain a good candidate?

Rain falls from the domain of the sky to the earth where it enters into domains associated to the trickster god, Enki.  Enki is the god of freshwater that flows in streams and in underground passages that come to the surface as springs.  All that underground fresh water is called “the Abzu”.

0098 [The domain of earth] is the substance that arises from a mundane potential of ‘a separation that performs as a substance’₁.

0099 I ask, “What domain of the earth captures mundane phenomena that associate to ‘a separation that performs as a substance’₁?”

Is fertility a good candidate?  What about competition?  What about the pursuit of love?  What about grasping for power?

Perhaps, I may consider the goddess, Inanna, as the personification of ‘a separation that performs a substance’₁.

Innana is the goddess of love and war.  To me, that designation sounds like the two extremes of earthy, organic desire.  Humans are animals, after all.

0100 In brief, I associate An₂ and Ki₂ to normal contexts₃ dwelling within the actuality₂ of Enlil₃.  Further, I associate the potentials₁ underlying An₃₍₂₎ and Ki₃₍₂₎, to Enki (the god of freshwater and the Abzu) and Inanna (the goddess who drives people together and drives people apart).  Enki₁₍₂₎ and Innana₁₍₂₎ label potentials that reside in the realm of Enlil₃‘s actuality₂.

0101 Here is a diagram of the actuality₂.  The overall normal context is Enlil₃.  The potential₁ is ‘a separation that empowers a substance’ or ‘a separation that performs as a substance’ or ‘a separation in potential that supports a substance in actuality’.

0102 An₃, the sky god, belongs to the realm of actuality in Enlil’s nested form, yet serves as a normal context₃ that is separated from Ki₃, the earth goddess.  The separation of An₃ and Ki₃ is not pictured in the above figure.  [Separation] is the contiguity between these two gods.  [Separation] is the substance of Enlil’s domain.

0103 Four gods belong to the realm of actuality in the normal contexts of An₃ and Ki₃.

Utu, the god of the sun, is separate from Nanna, the goddess of the moon.  That separation is like a substance, belonging to the domain of the sky.

Ninhursag, the goddess of the mountains and other highlands, is separate from Ereshlugal, the goddess of underground places, including the resting place of the dead.  The separation is like a substance, belonging to the domain of the earth.

0104 Two gods belong to the realm of potential within the actuality in Enlil’s nested form.

0105 Enki is the god of fresh water in streams and running underground.

Why do I associate him with the potential underlying Utu₂ (the sun) and Nanna₂ (the moon)? 

The freshwater in streams and underground waterways comes from rain.  Rain occurs when the sun and the moon are not visible.  They are behind clouds.  When the sun and moon are visible, then there is no rain.  Rain is fresh water.   The fresh waters are in motion, on land in streams and under land in passageways leading to springs.

Of course, my association is counter-intuitive. The logic of actuality₂ is that of contradiction and non-contradiction.  The logic of actuality applies to Utu and Nanna.  The logics of possibility₁ are counterintuitive.  Firstness allows contradictions and is inclusive.  We can see by the lights of Utu and Nanna.  But, we cannot drink their sky-water.  Their sky-water must come to earth.

Enki is like a substance that supports a separation in the domain of the sky.

0106 Innana is the goddess of love and war.

To me, a goddess that represents such a direct contradiction must belong to the category of firstness.  I have two options.  Enki goes with the sky.  So, Innana goes with the earth.

Innana potentiates the gods of the earth, Ninhursag (the goddess of highland places) and Ereshlugal (the goddess of underground places).   Why would the goddess of love and war pertain to the mountains and the caverns?  Perhaps, love and war reflect desire and desire is what makes mountains (out of molehills) and pitfalls (out of stumbles).

Innana is like a substance that supports a separation in the domain of the earth.

0107 These associations in the category of firstness are highly speculative.

The fact that Enlil’s actuality₂ consists of two category-based nested forms suggests a highly differentiated godhead.  The only potential that is not labeled is the potential₁ underlying Enlil₃, which is the potential₁ that ‘a separation can serve as a substance’.  This potential₁ is inverted in the potentials that I associate to Enki₁₍₂₎ and Innana₁₍₂₎.

0108 Enki₁ labels a substance that has the potential of separation from the sky.  That substance is rainwater.

Innana₁ labels a substance that separates from the earth, yet is as grand as the mountains and as dangerous as the underground.  We (humans) are grounded in desire.