拱éologie du territoire, 德’Égée au Sahara

拱éologie du territoire, 德’Égée au Sahara

乔治亚·库特西·菲利帕基斯和任编辑é Treuil (CahArch 1[2]). Pp. 329, figs. 75. Publications 德a Sorbonne, Paris 2011. €45. ISBN 978-2-85944-658-1(纸)。


In 上 ly a few decades, the 拱aeology of landscape has achieved “street cred”在英语世界及其他地区(对于德国,请参见W. Bebermeier等人编辑,“景观考古学:会议(LAC 2012),” eTopoi 特别卷3 [2012] http://journal.topoi.org/index.php/etopoi/issue/view/4). What is meant by landscape 拱aeology, of course, still varies considerably from 上 e author to another. In the French-speaking world, where an “archéologie du paysage” was proposed in the 1970s, a plethora of spin-off trends flooded the academic market, such as 拱aeology “de l’environnement,” “du peuplement,” “spatialiste,” “géotopographique,” indeed, “archéo­géographie”/“arché支付史” or “géotopographie 拱éologique.”在1980年代,有人谈论“archéologie du territoire” (or “du terroir”),而目前的数量试图将法语“archaeology of 领土”在更坚实的基础上。一个“archaeology of 领土” is in Anglo­phone scholarship at best ancillary to landscape 拱aeology and generally has not (yet) received independent treatment (but see M. Zedeño’s dense 文章, “领土与领土考古,”在B. David和J. Thomas编, 景观考古手册 [Walnut Creek,加利福尼亚州,2008年] 210–17).

该卷重新组合了大学研究研讨会上发表的20篇论文é Paris 1 Panthé索邦(on-Sorbonne),由编辑进行介绍和总结(目录可在 www.mae.u-paris10.fr/arscan/G-Kourtessi-Philippakis-R-Treuil.html)。这些贡献主要涉及希腊大陆和岛屿的史前史,以及撒哈拉沙漠(Amblard-Pison和Baroin的文章),法国(Brun,Beeching和Brochier的文章)以及过渡时期的一些普通论文和案例研究。从Aurignacian到Balkans(Kozłowski)的Gravettian。

Kourtessi-Philippakis的介绍将领土定义为“具有共同的自我和历史表征的人类群体对空间的经济,思想和政治上的占用” (8). This resembles some 拱aeological definitions of landscape/“paysage,”尽管相似性从未在本卷中得到解决。然后,她向读者提出挑战,声称如果不使用,就不可能研究领土“psychology,”她扩展了...的概念“territory” to also mean “a founding myth” or “a book”(例如《圣经》,《古兰经》’an). Her statement that any social 领土 is a product of human imagination (8) is echoed in the final word by the other editor’(Treuil)的立场,即领土是由文化创造的(因此,“领土是一种行为” [313]) and that the use of 拱aeology to investigate the cultural dimension of the 领土 is “illusory” (314).


Some 文章s are not directly connected with 拱aeology: territoriality of chimpanzees and fur seals (Pouydebat and Eggert), ethnography of the Toubou in northern Chad (Baroin), and the historical geography of Epirus (Dausse). Articles by Desse and Desse-Berset and Théodoropoulou处理地中海捕捞(石斑鱼和其他鱼类),海洋“territories” being, for example, coastal vs. deeper waters. Yet others are more philological, discussing the vocabulary for boundaries in Hellenistic cities (Coutsinas) or reading political 领地 in cadastral texts from Late Bronze Age Pylos (Zurbach). Some make the most of a daunting task. Thus, the 文章 by Taborin studies interfaces between 领地, places of contact between communities (烈酒),对于研究矛前轴的抹大拉的风气至关重要(穿梭)在多瑙河上游。 Astruc和Briois对塞浦路斯的陶瓷新石器时代进行了案例研究,并将Khirokitia的遗址与新发现的Shillourokambos遗址进行了比较,Lespez对马其顿的Dikili Tash进行了相同的研究(得出的直觉结论是,新石器时代的遗址不在土壤所在的地方最简单的工作)。马拉米杜(Malamidou)分析了爱琴海景观的人性化,结合了防御工事,房屋和墓葬,对领地的知识得到了提升。 Amblard-Pison在毛里塔尼亚东南部的新石器时代遗址中也强调了这种人类活动,那里的土壤被带到覆盖砂岩露头的地方。 Phialon将书面文件(包括1990年代在底比斯发现的壮观藏书)与建筑残骸和墓葬分布进行了对比,以重建青铜时代晚期的风神。反过来,借助荷兰南部Aldenhoven高原和Aisne山谷的遗址,Allard重新考虑了Linearband­拜拉尼(Bylany)所知道的keramik领土,包括居住单位,村庄的植入以及最终的区域和超区域交换。偶然的巧合是,这些文章都没有提到道路,但除此之外,这些分析是丰富而有启发性的。

Because of an apparent difficulty in finding material that would be compellingly relevant to the study of 领地, most 文章s show 上 e or both of two tendencies. One has to do with introducing secondary strong points, such as the presentation of (otherwise certainly interesting) 拱aeological data for the sake of data and not for the sake of discussing territoriality (Christidou 上 bone implements). The inherent risk of such a generous conception of the topic is the dissolution of the specificity of the object of study. The other tendency is visible in working from postulates presented 顺便说说 并且,尽管它们可能有吸引力,但这只是假设。例如,在青铜时代,精英们维持了较长距离的婚姻联系,以确保获得声誉商品(218)。从西伯利亚到西班牙的旧石器时代绘画的相似性证明,画家讲的语言密切相关(33);新石器时代遗骨的蹲伏位置的目的是节省空间(113)。

Treuil is surely right in saying that it is difficult for 拱aeology to deal with territorial markers such as “庭院,花园,耕地,葡萄园,小径 ...灌溉系统,超自然路线 ...牧场,羊圈 ...狩猎小屋,石灰燃烧器’小屋,松露场,脱粒区”(312)。但是,有些文章很好地解决了其中一些问题(例如,超人类[Acovitsioti-Hameau]; grottes贝格里斯,用作羊圈的山洞,在山毛榉和Brochier’Rh的野外项目ô盆地识别出粪便,辅prolites和乳牙。此外,深入研究必定会发现超出最初预期的范围(J. Cherry,J.L。Davis和E. Mantzourani编辑, 作为长期历史的景观考古学:从最早的定居到近代的基克拉迪群岛的北基思 [1991年,洛杉矶,洛杉矶]。


最后,最好能明确告知读者(尤其是英语阅读者)是哪个省份的景观考古/“archéologie du paysage” the 拱aeology of 领土 is actually concerned with. Despite the obvious partial overlap between the two, the volume is generally written as if landscape 拱aeology had not yet been invented. Wherein lie the differences between the two for the authors? Should the reader infer that 领土 is basically landscape sans GIS (never mentioned in the text)? Is 领土 a special instance of landscape that is chronologically, politically, or economically circumscribed? One gladly grants that, by studying 领土 at the intersection of physical and mental boundaries, and by proposing a rich variety of approaches 上 human territoriality (from ethological ecology to space syntax models to site catchment analysis, although the last is paradoxically considered by 上 e editor to be “naïve”[314],这本书提供了发人深省的演讲。但是也许通过不那么广泛地撒网,渔获量可能会更丰富。

卡塔琳·帕维尔(Catalin Pavel)

的书评 拱éologie du territoire, 德Égée au Sahara由Georgia Kourtessi-Philippakis和Ren编辑é Treuil

卡塔琳·帕维尔(Catalin Pavel)评论

美国考古学杂志 卷117,No.2(2013年4月)

在线发布于 www.ajaonline.org/book-review/1516

DOI:10.3764 / ajaonline1172.Pavel



  • 网页地址和电子邮件地址自动变为链接。
  • 行和段被自动切分。