遗址博物馆土遗址病害调查与成因分析——以萧山跨湖桥遗址博物馆为例

潮湿环境土遗址的保护一直是非常困难的课题。当遗址与其他材质的文物共存时,保护难度更高。为了探讨遗址博物馆内病害发生的规律和影响因素,为未来潮湿环境土遗址保护措施的研究和设计提供依据,以杭州市萧山区跨湖桥遗址为例开展调查研究。发现盖棚可以防止雨水对土遗址的破坏,但造成了水和盐的单向迁移,是目前土遗址病害的主要根源。对于室内遗址博物馆,如何解决遗址土体水分单向迁移带来的破坏已经成为迫切需要开展研究的课题,建议尽快开展室内土遗址补水技术的实验研究。     

声频应力波法检测土遗址加固用玻璃纤维锚杆锚固质量初探

土遗址锚杆锚固质量一直是土遗址加固工程中关注的重点问题。目前,土遗址领域均采用具有破坏性的拉拔试验对其进行检测。基于土遗址的文物属性,本研究尝试利用无损检测技术评价土遗址加固用玻璃纤维锚杆的锚固质量。通过锚杆无损检测仪与拉拔仪分别对甘肃省红沙堡遗址与永泰城址加固工程中的玻璃纤维锚杆锚固系统进行检测。比较实际测量杆长与仪器测量杆长结果,得出杆长指标可以判断无损检测仪所测结果的真实性。无损检测仪得出的检测波形衰减规律显著,对比相应锚杆的拉拔试验的评价结果,证实了声频应力波法在土遗址玻璃纤维锚杆锚固系统无损检测中的适用性。本研究结果将为评价土遗址加固用玻璃纤维锚杆锚固质量提供可靠的依据。     

宁绍地区早期遗址群的量化分析

宁绍地区早期遗址群的时空变化是钱塘江以南聚落考古研究的重要课题。本文全面收集了这一地区的考古资料,着重从量化分析的角度,对距今7000～3000年间的遗址进行了考古地理学考察。在提取高分辨率年代序列的基础上,绘制出多幅遗址群分布地图,初步恢复性重建了宁绍平原考古时代的聚落群景观。     

土遗址防风化加固材料的研制及加固性能比较研究

本文用简单易行的方法将正硅酸乙酯进行预聚合,用盐酸作催化剂,待反应完毕后,在用乙二胺将PH值调节至微碱性,得到的预聚物呈无色透明液体。用此预聚物加固室内重塑土样,通过各种测试手段,如加固前后重量变化、渗透速度、空隙率变化、颜色变化、透气性变化、PH值以及盐蚀、冻融、高温高湿试验后的抗压强度等,并与PS材料、硅丙非水分散体、正硅酸乙酯和Remmers加固的标准土样进行各项性能的比较试验,结果表明:正硅酸乙酯预聚物加固后的土样各项性能都比较理想,能满足土遗址保护的要求。     

唐陵大遗址考古的思路与方法——2007～2008年度中国田野考古一等奖获奖项目介绍

<正>陕西唐陵大遗址保护项目的考古工作荣获2007～2008年度全国田野考古一等奖。这是国家文物局和考古学界对我们工作成绩的肯定与鼓励,也是我院田野考古工作者开拓创新、辛勤工作的结果。以下将唐陵考古工作中的思路、方法、措施以及得失作以介绍,以期得到考古界同仁的指教。     

放射性碳素测定年代报告(三八)

本报告发表的是中国社会科学院考古研究所考古科技实验研究中心碳十四实验室和中国科学院地球环境研究所西安加速器质谱测试中心在2007～2011年期间测定的40个考古数据。数据表示方式与以往所发报告相同。为方便应用另做如下几点说明。1.碳十四年代半衰期按5568年计算。2.校正年代所用程序为OxCal,校正曲线为1998年公布版本。3.与以往报告相同,所给年代误差范围均为±16,年代范围的概率分布为68.2%。4.由于树轮年代校正曲线各区段形状不同,校正后年代范围可能形成几组,总合概率为68.2%(与过去报告中总合概率表示为100%相同)。5.校正均按单一样品方式处理。6.数据均作碳十三     

金沙遗址博物馆大气污染特征研究

为全面了解金沙遗址博物馆遗址区空气污染特征及污染物来源,在2019年秋季对遗址保护厅内外大气中细颗粒物(PM_2.5)和挥发性有机物(VOCs)进行了观测,并对各自化学组分进行了全面分析。结果发现:金沙遗址博物馆遗址保护厅内外PM_2.5污染严重,平均质量浓度分别为77.0μg/m³和94.6μg/m³;受人为影响程度的不同,室内昼夜差异明显强于室外。室外的OM、NO₃^-和SO₄^2-浓度高于室内,而室内的NH+4和典型的地壳元素(K⁺、Mg²⁺和Ca²⁺)浓度高于室外;受化学组成的影响,室内外PM_2.5分别呈碱性和酸性。地壳元素在整体元素中占据绝对主导,室内外占比分别可达82.8%和84.4%。通过富集因子分析得知Cu(室外)、Ag、Cd、Sb元素均达到了重度富集。室内外VOCs浓度几乎相同,分别为81.2×10^-9和81.3×10^-9,其中烷烃的贡献比例最高,分别为44%和46%;源自机动车、工业溶剂涂料使用、燃油挥发及生物质燃烧等人为源的VOCs物质在室外的浓度要明显高于室内。这些研究结果对于金沙遗址博物馆遗址区空气质量的全面了解、土遗址及其中文物的高质量保存和提供优质的参观环境具有重要意义。     

Comments on M. Kuhle and S. Kuhle (2012): ‘Hannibal Gone Astray? A Critical Comment on W. C. Mahaney et al., “The Traversette (Italia) Rockfall: Geomorphological Indicator of the Hannibalic Invasion Route” (Archaeometry, 52, 1 [2010] 156–72)’

The title of Kuhle and Kuhle's (2012) (hereafter K&K 2012) paper in Archaeometry appears to be mostly a tirade against the Traversette Route of Hannibal's Army, as originally favoured by Sir Gavin de Beer—a man possessed of singular scientific experience and near‐singular interest in Carthaginian history—in the mid‐part of the last century. The mere fact that Mahaney et al. (2010a,c) added to de Beer's corpus of evidence that Hannibal followed the southern route appears to have brought K&K (2012) to lodge not only a protest, but one of accusatory tone, stating that Mahaney et al. (2010c) had erroneously misinterpreted historical texts to prove the Col de la Traversette as the Punic Army col of passage into Italia. Aside from the fact that the tone of these allegations rises to a curious level, it is the intention of this discussion to put facts where they belong, rooted in what is known of the Hannibalic Invasion and what is inferred by the prevailing scientific evidence. It is important to note that there is not one preferred route as stated by K&K (2012), but three in fact (see Fig. 1 (a) in Mahaney et al. 2010c), and all have been discussed by a legion of historians (see, e.g., Freshfield 1886, 1899; de Beer 1969; Proctor 1971; Prevas 1998; Mahaney 2008).     

Reconsidering Relocated Buildings: ICOMOS,Authenticity and Mass Relocation 1

ICOMOS charters guide global heritage conservation practices. Fundamental to most is the notion that a ‘monument is inseparable from the history to which it bears witness and from the setting in which it occurs.’ Yet buildings have been moved for centuries. Neither the fabric nor the size of a building, nor planning regulations, nor even heritage listing, have prevented their relocation. This article briefly examines the history of relocation, reviews attitudes to relocation in ICOMOS charters, and analyses two case studies involving the mass relocation of heritage buildings in the UK and in New Zealand to question the assumption that buildings lose their authenticity if moved.     

Visible Archaeological Remains in Towns and Parks

This paper relates a specific and professional understanding of the nature of archaeological sites to management needs and approaches. It focuses on how the nature of the resource itself relates to a system of valuation, conservation and preservation. The perspective taken is that of the contribution of landscape planning to the development of tourism and heritage management. One of the central aims is to explain the visual values of archaeological remains in the landscape, relating them to the different measures of preservation available for archaeological sites. Examples are included from Latvia and other European countries.