考古学史首先是思想观念的发展史——布鲁斯·特里格《考古学思想史》第二版读后感

英国考古学家科林·伦福儒说过．经历了大概四十年,我们这些考古学者,尤其是英美的考古学者．才逐渐意识到真正的考古学史不仅是指考古发现的历史,也不只是科学技术的发展史。事实上。真正意义的考古学史也是考古学思想的发展史。他还说,经验证明．难度最大的进展是观念上的进步。     

也谈考古报告的编写

什么是理想的考古报告,理想的考古报告又是什么?近一段时间以来,已有不少的考古学者纷纷著文,提出了自己心中对于理想考古报告的认识。笔者也想结合自己在考     

也谈考古报告的编写

什么是理想的考古报告,理想的考古报告又是什么？近一段时间以来,已有不少的考古学者纷纷著文,提出了自己心中对于理想考古报告的认识。笔者也想结合自己在考古学习中的体会,谈谈我心中的理想的考古报告。     

中国考古学的历史传统与时代使命

目 次 一 救亡图存与重建古史:早期中国考古学的历史选择 二 从考古学文化到区系类型:中国考古学的探索与发展 三 坚定文化自信:新时代考古学的历史使命 习近平总书记"9·28"重要讲话深刻阐述了我国考古工作取得的重大成就和重要意义,为新时代中国考古事业发展指明了前进方向,也为如何构建中华民族历史、认识中华文明丰富内涵、坚定文化自信提供了理论依据[1].考古学在中国是近代化的产物,从它自西方传入中国、并且植根于中华大地这片沃土伊始,一方面在学术目标、理论建设和田野实践等环节就不断形成自身的历史传统,不再是西方考古学的翻版,而是努力朝着建设中国特色和中国风格的考古学体系迈进;另一方面,在不同的时代,中国考古学者也承担起不同的历史使命,不断续写新篇,继往开来,为中华文明和世界文明做出了独特贡献.回顾百年中国考古学史,每当时代发展的重大转折关头,中国考古学都在顺应历史变革、引领社会思潮、坚定文化自信上起到重要的历史作用.     

考古学导论（续）

考古学者经常会遇到这样的提问：“你是怎样知道到那里去发掘？”大多数并不是全部的考古遗址(旧石器时代的堆积层除外),都可以用肉眼观察到地表上的土墩或竖穴所呈现出的有显著标志的特点。再者,这些遗址所显示的表面现象,即使不经过发掘,有经验的人也会知道可能会有什么样的发现。因此当读者在英国乡间漫步观察时,就可以根据这些普遍的考古现象而作出判断。     

楚都丹阳"丹淅说"与"枝江说'的对比研究

本文主要从文献、族源、考古、地理等四个方面对楚都丹阳"丹淅说"和"枝江说"进行对比研究,然后综合起来考察.总的来说丹淅说优于枝江说,枝江说的文献依据较晚,在考古和族源方面完全得不到支持,在地理上也难以解释.但丹淅说也不圆满,存在很大的漏洞.丹淅说如要真正成立,还需要对枝江说方面的驳难作出认真的回应.     

发现历史追寻文明——记浙江新世纪考古成果展（中）

三．谷豕是飨 据目前的发现和研究,南方农业发展的摇篮是在长江中下游地区。业已发掘的考古遗址出土动植物遗存资料也表明,浙江省农业生产的地域特色具有深厚历史渊源,是一部万年以上的发展史,     

书讯

正复活的土司城堡:海龙囤考古手记李飞著,贵州出版集团、贵州教育出版社2014年7月出版,定价36元。作者是海龙囤遗址的发掘领队,一位意气飞扬的"非典型"考古学者。本书是海龙囤考古发掘的"副产品"。作者在白天繁重的考古发掘和整理工作之余,断续在"囤上"写下了36篇10余万字的考古手记,尝试以自己的观察,又尽量摈弃主观的臆断,基于考古发现、文献记载和口碑传说,对海龙囤作出新的、更接近史实的界说。书写的过程,用他自己的话说"没有严密的计划,也没有宏大的叙事,只是随着考古工作的逐步深入,就所看到黄土深处不一样风景的所感、所思,信笔写去"。书中行文尽情挥洒考古探索的意象,描摹作者所看到、所感知、所不解的海龙囤。     

美国考古学:过去与未来

1935年12月28日,三十一位考古学家聚会于匹茨堡,标志着美国考古学会——一个“美国专业的和非专业的考古学者得以表达自己思想”的团体——的创立。1985年5月近两千名考古学者,包括三位学会的创始人在丹佛隆重集会,庆祝学会创建五十周年.《美洲古物》上的一篇回顾文章刊载了这次重要会议,六百三十四位专家的发言、公开演说和一整天的学术讨论会评价了这门学科     

有心还是无意:李济汾河流域调查与夏文化探索

1925年李济在汾河流域的调查以及1926年对山西夏县西阴村遗址的发掘是中国考古学者第一次自行组织的考古工作。以往研究大多指出探索夏文化是李济这次考古活动的主要目的,本文通过分析李济当年所写的调查和发掘报告,证明李济此行的真实目的是要寻找一处适合发掘的史前遗址,并企图通过自己的工作以回应安特生的中国文化西来说。而终李济一生,他认为在考古学上还没有足够的证据表明何种文化为夏文化。     

Archaeology, History, and Historical Archaeology in South America

This paper discusses the relationship between history and archaeology in general, their common concerns and links with historical archaeology. It deals with the development of historical archaeology in three related South American countries, Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, and pays attention to recent trends in the theory and practice of the discipline in the area.     

"文明探源:考古与历史的整合"学术研讨会综述

2005年11月23-25日,由河南博物院联合中国社会科学院古代文明研究中心、河南省文物考古研究所共同举办了“文明探源:考古与历史的整合”学术研讨会。为了充分反映这次会议的学术成果,《中原文物》特辟“文明探源”栏目,从2006年第1期起将陆续刊登大会论文。同时也希望有更多的专家学者参与讨论并惠赐佳作,以期推动中国古代文明起源的研究。     

A History of Archaeology in the Republic of Armenia

Abstract

This article traces the development of archaeological inquiry in the former Soviet Republic of Armenia, from its antiquarian roots in the 19th century, through the Soviet era, and into modern times. The resurgence of western attention in the region since the end of the Cold War has been driven by collaborative research projects from the United States, Germany, Austria, France, Italy, England, Russia, and Canada, that employ a variety of methods to understand the archaeological heritage of Armenia. Research problems are related to the Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic, Bronze and Iron Ages, as well as to the Urartian, Achaemenid, and Hellenistic periods.

For those unfamiliar with Armenia, this article is meant as a primer to the history of the discipline as it has been practiced in the region. For those already engaged in archaeology there, it is our hope that this discussion will lend an added historical dimension to ongoing field projects.     

Model Boats in the Context of Maritime History and Archaeology

Funereal, votive or shipbuilders' model boats and ships have been quite well documented in the past, but little research has been undertaken into other wooden models from north-west Europe. There have been over 160 found during archaeological excavations, dating from the 9th to the 19th centuries. A study of these 'toys' is not just a study of objects among the minor arts, but reflects a far more important aspect—a source for interpreting remains of full-size vessels, the hypothetical reconstruction of hull-forms and exploration of new ways of defining unknown vessel-types.
© 2007 The Author     

The Archaeology of Historic Battlefields: A History and Theoretical Development in Conflict Archaeology

In the last two and a half decades there have been many advances in the technology available to archaeologists. As new technologies have been used to challenge previously held hypotheses and expand the capabilities of current research, they also have assisted the expansion of archaeology to include conflict archaeology. Although there has been a long history of interest in the material remains of conflict, it is only recently that the necessary tools, methodology, and theoretical approaches have been combined to allow serious scientific contributions to the holistic study of past human conflict. This article provides an overview of the origins of conflict archaeology and research that has helped consolidate the subfield into its present form. We examine the current state of conflict studies and consider what lies ahead for conflict archaeology.     

A History of Normative Theory in Americanist Archaeology

Efforts in the 1960s to demonstrate the value of the new archaeology involved showing that the competing culture-history paradigm was inferior. One allegedly weak plank in that paradigm had to do with how culture historians viewed culture—as a set of ideas transmitted in the form of ideal norms or mental templates. Lewis Binford referred to this view as normative theory. In archaeology that view was manifest in the equation of artifact types with prehistoric norms—an equation that, according to Binford, the culture historians had made so that they could track the flow of ideas through time and thus write culture history. Culture historians regularly subscribed to cultural transmission as the theoretical backdrop for their artifact-based chronometers such as seriation and the direct historical approach, but with few exceptions they perceived only a weak relationship between norms and artifact types. It was not until 1960, in a paper by James Gifford, that what Binford labeled as normative theory appeared in anything approaching a complete form. Ironically, the first applications of normative theory were products of the new archaeologists, not the culture historians.