{"title":"基于GIS的中国土点建设技术时空演变特征","authors":"Zhiqian Guo, Qiang Qi, Shuai Zhang, Wenwu Chen, Lei Yang, Yining Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s12520-025-02247-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Chinese earthen sites are notable for their abundance, historical depth, and cultural value, with construction techniques diversifying from Prehistory to the Qing Dynasty. However, existing research has yet to provide a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the spatial and chrono-cultural evolution of construction techniques at earthen sites. This study identifies eight key techniques, including cut left, rammed earth, adobe, wattle and daub, cob, stacked earth, grass-wrapped mud, and mixed soil-rock structure. their evolution was delineated into five phases: (I) Embryonic (Before 2070 B.C.), (II) Development (2070 B.C.-221 B.C.), (III) Formation (221 B.C.-618 A.D.), (IV) Application (618 A.D.-1206 A.D.), and (V) Transformation (1206 A.D.-1911 A.D.). Spatial analysis using ArcGIS Pro tools uncovered a \"concentration-diffusion\" pattern: rammed earth techniques radiated from the Central Plains, stacked earth clustered along the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers, and cut left prevailed in early civilization regions. Quantitatively, cut left dominated the Embryonic phase (41.5%), while rammed earth usage escalated from 78.5% to 91.5% across subsequent phases, marginalizing other methods. By the Transformation phase, only four techniques persisted at 47 sites, with masonry and wood displacing earthen structures. The spatiotemporal evolution reflects dual drivers: natural factors (climate, soil, topography) and societal dynamics (productivity advances, demand shifts), epitomizing the dialectical human- environment relationship. This synthesis of technical progression and environmental adaptation not only clarifies historical construction practices but also informs contemporary strategies for heritage preservation. The findings underscore how ecological constraints and human ingenuity jointly shaped architectural innovation, offering vital insights for heritage conservation and historical research.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8214,"journal":{"name":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","volume":"17 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characterization of spatial and chrono-cultural evolution of earthen sites construction technology in China based on GIS\",\"authors\":\"Zhiqian Guo, Qiang Qi, Shuai Zhang, Wenwu Chen, Lei Yang, Yining Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12520-025-02247-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Chinese earthen sites are notable for their abundance, historical depth, and cultural value, with construction techniques diversifying from Prehistory to the Qing Dynasty. However, existing research has yet to provide a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the spatial and chrono-cultural evolution of construction techniques at earthen sites. This study identifies eight key techniques, including cut left, rammed earth, adobe, wattle and daub, cob, stacked earth, grass-wrapped mud, and mixed soil-rock structure. their evolution was delineated into five phases: (I) Embryonic (Before 2070 B.C.), (II) Development (2070 B.C.-221 B.C.), (III) Formation (221 B.C.-618 A.D.), (IV) Application (618 A.D.-1206 A.D.), and (V) Transformation (1206 A.D.-1911 A.D.). Spatial analysis using ArcGIS Pro tools uncovered a \\\"concentration-diffusion\\\" pattern: rammed earth techniques radiated from the Central Plains, stacked earth clustered along the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers, and cut left prevailed in early civilization regions. Quantitatively, cut left dominated the Embryonic phase (41.5%), while rammed earth usage escalated from 78.5% to 91.5% across subsequent phases, marginalizing other methods. By the Transformation phase, only four techniques persisted at 47 sites, with masonry and wood displacing earthen structures. The spatiotemporal evolution reflects dual drivers: natural factors (climate, soil, topography) and societal dynamics (productivity advances, demand shifts), epitomizing the dialectical human- environment relationship. This synthesis of technical progression and environmental adaptation not only clarifies historical construction practices but also informs contemporary strategies for heritage preservation. The findings underscore how ecological constraints and human ingenuity jointly shaped architectural innovation, offering vital insights for heritage conservation and historical research.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences\",\"volume\":\"17 7\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-025-02247-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-025-02247-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Characterization of spatial and chrono-cultural evolution of earthen sites construction technology in China based on GIS
Chinese earthen sites are notable for their abundance, historical depth, and cultural value, with construction techniques diversifying from Prehistory to the Qing Dynasty. However, existing research has yet to provide a comprehensive quantitative analysis of the spatial and chrono-cultural evolution of construction techniques at earthen sites. This study identifies eight key techniques, including cut left, rammed earth, adobe, wattle and daub, cob, stacked earth, grass-wrapped mud, and mixed soil-rock structure. their evolution was delineated into five phases: (I) Embryonic (Before 2070 B.C.), (II) Development (2070 B.C.-221 B.C.), (III) Formation (221 B.C.-618 A.D.), (IV) Application (618 A.D.-1206 A.D.), and (V) Transformation (1206 A.D.-1911 A.D.). Spatial analysis using ArcGIS Pro tools uncovered a "concentration-diffusion" pattern: rammed earth techniques radiated from the Central Plains, stacked earth clustered along the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers, and cut left prevailed in early civilization regions. Quantitatively, cut left dominated the Embryonic phase (41.5%), while rammed earth usage escalated from 78.5% to 91.5% across subsequent phases, marginalizing other methods. By the Transformation phase, only four techniques persisted at 47 sites, with masonry and wood displacing earthen structures. The spatiotemporal evolution reflects dual drivers: natural factors (climate, soil, topography) and societal dynamics (productivity advances, demand shifts), epitomizing the dialectical human- environment relationship. This synthesis of technical progression and environmental adaptation not only clarifies historical construction practices but also informs contemporary strategies for heritage preservation. The findings underscore how ecological constraints and human ingenuity jointly shaped architectural innovation, offering vital insights for heritage conservation and historical research.
期刊介绍:
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences covers the full spectrum of natural scientific methods with an emphasis on the archaeological contexts and the questions being studied. It bridges the gap between archaeologists and natural scientists providing a forum to encourage the continued integration of scientific methodologies in archaeological research.
Coverage in the journal includes: archaeology, geology/geophysical prospection, geoarchaeology, geochronology, palaeoanthropology, archaeozoology and archaeobotany, genetics and other biomolecules, material analysis and conservation science.
The journal is endorsed by the German Society of Natural Scientific Archaeology and Archaeometry (GNAA), the Hellenic Society for Archaeometry (HSC), the Association of Italian Archaeometrists (AIAr) and the Society of Archaeological Sciences (SAS).