考古发掘与考古发现

考古发现和考古学理论方法是考古学赖以进步的两条腿。考古发现不断刷新考古学家的视野并为考古学研究的深入提供新的资料,考古学理论方法使考古学的眼睛更加明亮,分析和思考更具有科学的力量。理论方法让考古学家对考古发现有更深入的认识,考古发现同时也推动综合研究和理论方法的进步。此外,考古发现往往会引起社会的关注,考古发现和考古学知识的普及可以为考古学的进步提供良好的社会环境,从而对考古学的发展产生强大的推动力量。考古学的持续发展要求考古学家必须正确处理考古发现、考古学自身理论方法的完善以及考古学与化遗产保护、公众知识状况和社会需求的关系。     

考古

考古发掘揭开景德镇明清御窑神秘面纱 2002年10月—2003年1月和2003年10月—12月,北京大学考古文博学院．江西省文物考古研究所、景德镇市陶瓷考古研究所联合组成考古队,对江西景德镇珠山明,清御窑遗址进行考古发掘。发掘面积共计788平方米,最深的探方达5米余。出土了一批遗迹和一大批遗物,获重大成果。出土的遗迹有墙,窑炉和清末民国时期江西瓷业公     

考古禁区

上图中带有希伯来文字的印章出自圣殿山的一处建筑工地。圣殿山是世界上最崇高的圣所之一,这里通常禁止挖掘,因此考古学家们充分利用对碎石进行筛滤的机会,发现了诸如箭簇、钱币、珠宝和发梳之类的古物。在许多地方都无法开展正式的考古工作,理由有许多：战争及其带来的影响、政治争端、根深蒂固的宗教差别、城市太过拥挤无法进行挖掘等等。     

考古

复活节岛的石帽几百年来．造访复活节岛的人都对岛上的一样奇观赞叹不已：谜一般的“摩艾”．共800多座,是原住民以巨石凿成、代表祖先神灵的巨大人像。     

考古珍闻

楚界北移近年来,河南内乡曾大量发现春秋战国时代青铜器皿和楚墓群,最近又在当地八里岗半崖上,发现一块秦、楚要塞县碑。该碑残长150。宽56、厚18厘米,碑文清晰可辨:“八里岗也,冲秦晋之要,通吴、楚之津”。由此可证,内乡在春秋战国时期原属楚地,而八里岗则又为北通秦晋、南下吴楚的要道,是秦、楚一处重要边界。山东沂源县发现猿人化石前不久,在山东沂源县骑子鞍山发现了距今四十万至五十万年的猿人化石,其中头盖骨、肱骨、股骨、肋骨各一块,牙齿六颗,眉骨二块。经鉴定:从化石的颜色、牙齿的磨蚀程度和不同的出土地点,认为这些标本代表两个成年猿人个体。眉骨的粗壮程度和牙齿的原始性质与北京猿人相似。和其共生的动物化石有肿骨鹿、李氏野猪、梅氏犀     

卫星考古

考古是门又脏又累的营生。挖掘是必须的,作业地点包括土里、沙里、雨林里。如今有了一种新的探索方式,无需动用挖掘铲。距地面600公里的高空中,卫星收集图像,以惊人的清晰度对地下景观进行辨认。就像帮助医生对肉眼不可见的身体部位进行检查的医疗扫描一样,卫星图像可以帮助科学家找到消失已久的河流、道路和城市,绘出地形图纸,并对无法造访的危险冲突地带的地形特征进行辨别。     

考古珍闻

江苏盱眙出土战国晚期稀世珍宝今年二月,江苏盱眙县农民在清理排水沟时,挖出一件盖有虎形金兽铜壶,壶型似煮汤的火锅,通体错金缕银,并有精美的梅花钉,肩部的横箍上焊着兽面衔环和虎形环耳,每个兽面上细刻双龙,环耳上镶嵌金银。壶中置金器、金币及黄金。金币中有楚国郢爰”十一块,内有迄今发现最大的金币一件,长12.7、宽7.9、厚0.4厘米,上有五十四个篆书“郢爱”印记,经鉴定金币和铜壶均有楚文化的特点,年代为战国晚期。是研究封建社会初期手工业和金币的珍贵史料。     

考古地理学与三峡考古实践

“考古地理学”一词源于日本 ,近年被引入中国并在理论和方法上得以重建和实践。其要义是通过考古遗存来研究历史上的地理现象 ,揭示其演变规律。以三峡聚落为代表的人文景观 ,是自然动力和人为动力综合作用的结果。遗存的形态是考察之首 ,遗存的功能是研究之本。     

考古

我国最大规模的殷墟考古发掘行动最近开始在河南安阳殷墟西区进行。据河南省物局局长常俭传介绍,由中国社会科学院考古研究所、河南省物考古研究所等单位组成的联合考古队将在一年的时间内发掘5万平方米,     

考古珍闻

陕西发现我国最早的骨雕人头像1982年4月,陕西省考古工作者在陕南西乡县何家湾新石器时代的仰韶文化半坡类型的堆积中,发现我国迄今年代最早的骨雕人头像。头像系用兽部分肢骨雕成,高2.5、头顶直径1.6、颈直径0.9厘米。头像雕刻笔法古朴粗犷,整个头像和人体头部形态相似,粗壮的横眉,圆大的眼睛,高高的鼻梁,清晰     

关于体育考古学学科体系的理论思考——《南方文物》“体育考古”专栏主持辞

体育,是通过人类活动而产生的一种文化形态,是构成不同时代人类社会生活特征的一种身体运动的表现形式。中国古代体育文化,从其所处的历史环境和文化背景来看,它是与当时的社会政治和经济发展水平相适应的。同时,也是人类在自身发展过程中所产生的一种身体文化产物。当代,随着考古学的发展,与古代体育活动有关的文物资料被大批地发掘出来,从而使我们对古代体育文化形态的研究有了更为充实的依据。     

民族考古与华南民族史、文化史的考古学重建——《南方文物》“民族考古”专栏主持辞

一．略说民族考古学 “民族考古”曾是人文社会科学研究中一个有争议的范畴,它的学科定位、性质、方法、领域及学术史等问题,有许多不同的看法。其实,“民族考古”（ethnoarchaeology）的性质已经明白地表现在字面上了,它就是民族学（ethnology）和考古学（archaeology）的组合,这一组合源于美国的人类学学术传统。     

多学科协作,深化中国的盐业考古——2011年度“盐业考古”导读

一本年度的"盐业考古"专栏收录了两篇文章。盐业考古是一项需要多学科参与的考古分支学科。近十年来,已有一些自然科学工作者参与其中,通过对在制盐遗址采集的各类样本进行检测分析,判断遗址的性质及各类遗迹的功能,取得了一些研究成果。今年本栏目收录的第一篇文章是北京大学考古文博学院崔剑锋先生提交的《山东寿光双王城制盐遗址的科技考古研究》,本文通过一系列的科学检测分析提出了一些不同于以往的新认识。     

Maroon Archaeology Is Public Archaeology

Researchers of the contemporary past have sought to be instrumental in public dialogue about how artifacts speak to heritage matters relevant to living communities and decision-making polities (Emberling and Hanson, Catastophe!: the looting and destruction of Iraq’s past, 2008; Gibbon, Who owns the past?: cultural policy, cultural property, and the law, 2005; Mullins, Places in mind: public archaeology as applied anthropology, 2004; Renfrew, Loot, legitimacy and ownership: the ethical crisis in archaeology, 2000; Skeates, Debating the archaeological heritage, 2000). This approach has made archaeology a public endeavor that serves the needs of inquisitive researchers, as well as those groups of individuals whose lives may be directly affected by the excavation, analysis, and interpretation of archaeological remains. This paper will broadly assess how the archaeology of Maroons—tribal communities of runaway slave descendants—has affected the application of scholarly research in the former Dutch territory of Suriname, SA. The shift in relevance is due to the Inter-American Court on Human Rights 2007 judgment that allows Suriname Maroons to assert decision-making authority on matters of land management and development in ancestral and contemporary habitat. Vital to this endeavor is, Maroon involvement in archaeological research and more importantly, an overhaul in Surinamese antiquity laws.     

Historical Archaeology as Modern-World Archaeology in Argentina

Historical archaeology has grown at a remarkable pace in the last decade. South America has seen a major growth in historical archaeology, with archaeologists in Argentina playing a large role in the maturation of the discipline on the continent. Much of this archaeology can be characterized as “modern-world archaeology” because of the archaeologists’ interest in issues relevant to post-Columbian cultural history.     

Un-Disciplining Archaeology

We can think of a kind of archaeological colonialism in terms of the exportation of metropolitan theories and/or methodologies to peripheral countries/regions, or in the way metropolitan academic institutions/archaeologists conduct archaeology in peripheral countries/regions. But even if we manage to stop those kinds of colonial bonds, archaeology would remain being an imperial weapon. And, moreover, it can be said that colonialism is not dependant on the overseas provenance of archaeologies and/or theories. Beyond theoretical and methodological variability, it is archaeology itself what happens to recapitulate colonialist relationships; and this seems to happen even when archaeology is openly and deliberately oriented towards indigenous peoples?? empowerment, social justice, and peace. It seems that theoretical and methodological paradigms and political intentions operate at a surface level, while colonialism is equipped with stronger streams operating below the floor where archaeologists stand. What is there below our feet, making us move in one direction even when we walk in the other? Neither being the theories, neither the methods, nor the political intentions and nationality, what is that hidden force that govern the sense of archaeology in the contemporary post-colonial world? My argument is that the hidden force it is not hidden at all, but remains unseen because it is too obvious. The disciplinary framework of archaeology itself -that is, its basic subject matter and method??beyond the theoretical and methodological paradigms and the political orientation in which we aim to proceed, or our nationality or whatever, recapitulates coloniality. Without implying that theoretical and methodological debate within archaeological discipline is in vain, I dedicate this piece to write not within, but about the discipline. In short, this will include talking about disciplining, its recapitulation in post-disciplinary contexts, and the implied proposal of un-disciplining archaeology.