蛛丝马迹 纤毫再现——从皖南土墩墓看商周时期古代先民的经济生活

皖南地区的土墩墓及其出土文物反映了当时社会的生产、生活面貌,耕作农业有所发展、纺织等手工业初露端倪、原始青瓷生产日渐成熟、青铜冶铸业颇具规模并形成自身特色、社会分工日益细化。这些都是了解和探寻商周时期皖南先民经济生活状况的重要参考,具有重要的研究价值。     

Building Monks Mound,Cahokia, Illinois,a.d. 800–1400

Abstract

Cahokia (a.d. 800–1400), located near the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri rivers, was the largest settlement in ancient North America. Monks Mound occupies the center of Cahokia and provides both a modern and ancient focal point for the site. Past investigations of Monks Mound explored issues of mound chronology and use. Recent soil coring around the perimeter clarifies the geological context and degree of preparation necessary before the mound was built. The results suggest that the mound is not optimally positioned for stability and its location may ultimately accelerate deterioration. Moreover, evaluation of the mound features and fill indicates that maximization of the geotechnical potential of sediments was not a primary concern for the Cahokians. Although poorly engineered relative to modern standards, the suitability of the mound as a platform may have been secondary to other design choices made while building the largest single mound in ancient North America.     

Thinking About a Public and Multidisciplinary Archaeology

Those practicing archaeology in the United States must be adept at designing multidisciplinary projects and be conversant with a complex array of laws, their historical development, and their application. Training in these spheres varies between archaeologists employed in cultural resource management and the public sector, and those in academic settings. King's manuals are useful guides to relevant legislation. Marquardt and Watson's multidisciplinary research program integrated public, government, and academic archaeologies while training generations of students studying the origins of agriculture and sedentism among the Shell Mound Archaic peoples of Kentucky.     

山东新石器时代环境考古信息及其与文化的关系

本文通过对鲁中南山前平原西部９处史前文化遗址动植物遗存的综合分析,获得了有价值的史前环境信息。作者还根据史前遗址的分布复原了史前海岸线与鲁西地貌;介绍了对胶东半岛贝丘软体动物的研究状况;并对上述史前环境信息与文化的关系作了探讨。     

略论屯溪土墩墓群的年代与族属

安徽屯溪土墩墓群自1959年发现以来,其年代和族属始终是长江下游商周考古研究的重点和争论的焦点。本文在对历年相关研究进行梳理的基础上,拓展研究思路和研究方法,简明扼要地论证了屯溪土墩墓群的年代为西周,八座墓的年代分别为西周早期、中期和晚期,屯溪土墩墓群的族属为於越,而屯溪一带有可能为越国早期都城所在。     

Rejoinder to Lepper Concerning Serpent Mound

In this article we address comments made by Bradley Lepper concerning our previously published article, “Radiocarbon Dates Reveal Serpent Mound is More than Two Thousand Years Old” (Romain, Herrmann, Monaghan, and Burks 2017). Further we offer commentary on the new radiocarbon dates provided by Lepper (this volume).     

明初南京天坛分合祀的变迁

明初朱元璋对国之大事的社稷行礼制式,经历了由南北对峙的天、地坛分祀制到合天地为一坛的合祀制,其分、合坛的建筑布局亦各不相同。     

Debating the Age of Serpent Mound: A Reply to Romain and Herrmann’s Rejoinder to Lepper Concerning Serpent Mound

The debate over the age of Serpent Mound (33AD01) is important because without a cultural context it is impossible to make meaningful statements about what this monumental effigy mound might have meant to its builders. In this response to Romain and Herrmann’s rejoinder, we clarify the provenience of the samples, which yielded the radiocarbon dates that contribute to our argument for a post–Late Woodland age for the effigy. In addition, we extend our critique of Romain and colleagues’ arguments to include the results of an independent study of soil cores extracted from the Serpent and surrounding landscape, which fails to corroborate Romain and colleagues’ assertion that a buried A horizon underlies the mound. Finally, we suggest that the construction of Serpent Mound may be historically linked to droughts in the Mississippi Valley that began at around AD 1100, which resulted in an influx of Mississippian refugees into the region.     

Serpent Mound: Still Built by the Adena,and Still Rebuilt During the Fort Ancient Period

Radiocarbon dates from the base of Serpent Mound in Ohio demonstrate that it was built 2,100–2,300 years ago during the Adena period but was subsequently rebuilt or repaired about 900 years ago during the Fort Ancient period. We describe the basis for supporting the chronology of this building sequence, why it is the best and most complete explanation from the data at hand, and discuss the errors and misconceptions that critics of it have put forth. Our interest is in establishing a chronology of mound construction in order to address questions about cultural continuity/discontinuity, appropriation, and reuse of cultural monuments and religious/political symbols. We also plead that researchers jointly collect new data from Serpent Mound to end the back-and-forth questioning of chronological context and research competence.     

On the Age of Serpent Mound: A Reply to Romain and Colleagues

Radiocarbon dates reported by Romain and colleagues (2017) suggesting that Serpent Mound (33AD1) is an Adena effigy mound are problematic because they cannot be linked reliably to cultural activities associated with the original construction of the effigy mound. Additional arguments offered by Romain and colleagues (2017) in support of an Early Woodland age for Serpent Mound also are unconvincing. A Late Prehistoric age for Serpent Mound is supported by the radiocarbon dates reported previously, new radiocarbon dates, the relative abundance of serpent imagery in the Fort Ancient culture and the contemporaneous Mississippian Tradition, the virtual absence of serpent imagery in the Adena culture, and the fact that, whereas effigy-mound building is otherwise unknown in the Early Woodland period, it is well documented, if rare, for the Fort Ancient culture and in the not-so-terribly-far-away upper Midwest it is so common that it defines the broadly contemporaneous Effigy Mound culture.