Göbekli Tepe Excavator Loses his Cool Over Stratigraphy Comments I

One of the Excavators of Gobekli Tepe posted on Twitter notification that another interim report has appeared (Dr. Oliver Dietrich @odietrich_ · Jul 25, 2023 Hot off the press, the first comprehensive paper on Building F and it’s pillar reliefs at Göbekli Tepe „Early Neolithic imagery in flux. A case study on the reliefs of Building F at Göbekli Tepe, southeastern Turkey“ #Archaeology #GöbekliTepe https://journals.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/13604). [Special] Building F had most of the internal fill excavated out in 2006-8. Only the upper levels of its structure were exposed, the building has not been dissected to reach the pre-construction features and in that form, it is a discrete structure. So in the light of the fact that initially it was reportedly excavated using a three-layer notation, where (in a nutshell) "I" was modern layers, "II" was a spread of rectangular structures and "III" were sunken oval 'special buildings'. It is clear that instead of actual layers, these were building phases. It remains unclear how the stratigraphy was documented and the excavated material collected. This new report can be expected to contain such information. 

Sadly, like a lot of the publications concerning this key (and already controversial) site, the main focus was on the "things" excavated, in this case even the "ancient art". But the stratigraphy of the building was shown. But not very well, and in a rather disturbing form. On Twitter I asked about this: 

It's easy to publish the excavated "things", pillars are easy to document, but what we need is the "timely publication" of the stratigraphy. It seems to me one very oblique section through the complex 3D stratigraphic structure (where are the edges of layer [lower pit fill] "1"?) is less than satisfactory as a record of anything. Besides which, the disposition and nature of the structure's infill shown in the section drawing and the photo of the same section, simply do not match! The nature and position of the lower interface of "layer 7" for example. I do not see how these "layers" are defined, there is an unnumbered layer between "5" and "3" (!) What is shown as "layer 4" to the right of the pillar has two parts quite clearly differing in rubble content, that rubble being a spill extending into 2, surely.

To illustrate my point, I used this extract of the published photo of the trench's northern profile that I added a section of the photo of the same profile, adjusted for scale. It seems quite clear to me that there are significant differences, which is documentation, and which is decorative infilling? (because they cannot both be documentation of the stratigraphic sequence and a basis for understanding site formation processes and assemblage 'taphonomy'). 

There is also a problem publishing (in the absence of other information) just the one section that cuts obliquely across layers some of which will most likely have come into the sunken area of the building from behind the section, rather than merely one side of it.

Anyway  Dr. Oliver Dietrich @odietrich_ did not answer the question, or refer me to any report that details the actual methods of excavation. He decides to go for insults:

Cutting off an image and telling me a layer is not numbered? Highly professional on your part. And, as you are an archaeologist, you surely know that an image in full sunlight does not show all colour differences/ that layers are also defined by differences in the sediments etc. 

Hmm, I think it is fairly clear (though I admit I did not explain it in detail- this was Twitter) that I have taken a PORTION of the published section to illustrate the point I was making. I chose the bit between the bench and the standing stone, as these provided fixed points against the disposition of the stones could be judged in both (besides which it is utterly unclear what happens at the left end of that section).

The layer that is not numbered is the layer that I said was not numbered. I assumed that "5" referred to the slumped part of the wall, and "6" the truncation of that same wall. It seems not: 

Paul Barford @PortantIssues · 19m Eh? What and where is the number of the black layer on the right between the collapsing wall (5) and layer "3"? There is NOTHING "unprofessional" in questioning a publication, that is why we publish our results, no? Yes, if you actually read what I wrote, you will see that I am not referring merely to "colour" but precisely the density, disposition, actual shape and size of the rock fragments in the photo, versus the way the drawing depicts them. We could also look at the relationship between the lower interface of Layer 7 and the top of the pillar. But the main issue is that one oblique section obviously cannot be the only record of a complex 3D series of deposits.

I think we need less emphasis on the excavated "finds" and more on the context.

Dr. Oliver Dietrich @odietrich_ · 15m 

5. 5 is the number of the layer. 

Paul Barford @PortantIssues · 13m 

So what is the number of the wall? 

Dr. Oliver Dietrich @odietrich_ · 10m 

Why does it need a number? 

O k***a... Excuse my Polish, That surprised me.

Paul Barford @PortantIssues Well, yeah. Heinrich Schliemann did not number them either, I was hoping things had come on a bit since then. How many stratigraphic units can we see in this photo? The DAI has dug out some of the soft bits, leaving selected hard bits. How many, what are their 'relationships? 3:54 PM · Sep 1, 2024

Picture in public domain of surfaces of what seems to have been excavated as "Layer II" and "Layer III":

Nobody on Twitter wanted to count. What actually is happening here? From this overview shot this looks like the excavation methods of G.P. Bushe Foxe at Wroxeter, where he dug down until he hit something hard, a wall stump or floor, which he left upstanding. I think we should be expecting here where the DAI is a guest in Turkey applying their best techniques, we should be seeing there something more like Graham Webster's work at Wroxeter at least, if not Philip Barker's.  No? Let us see what future publications show us. But please no more digging until they've published what they have and we can assess the effectiveness for post-excavation processing of the current excavation and recording methods.