作为鉴定考古遗址的工具

Pub Date : 2017-01-01 DOI:10.3176/ARCH.2017.2.01
Pikne Kama
{"title":"作为鉴定考古遗址的工具","authors":"Pikne Kama","doi":"10.3176/ARCH.2017.2.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article I present an analysis of how place-lore has and can be used as a tool to identify archaeological sites. The focus was upon three types of sites: prehistoric strongholds; burial sites on dry land; wetland sites with potential human remains. In the first part, the prehistoric strongholds in historical Võrumaa County are discussed, followed in the second part by the burial sites in Karula Parish. The aim was to answer the questions “How many of these sites had been identified using folklore (including place names)?”, “How did this place-lore form and what kind of information does it pass on?” and “How did identifications in folklore or on the basis of folklore relate to the archaeological evidence at these places?” In third part my own fieldwork, undertaken at wetlands selected on the basis of folklore that referred to human remains, is presented. Analysis of the prehistoric strongholds showed that in general they were identified on the basis of folklore. However, other potential stronghold sites that occur in place-lore remain unconfirmed by archaeological evidence. In the case of some of these sites, a lack of confirmation may be owing to inadequate archaeological investigation. Almost all burial places in Karula Parish have been identified using place-lore, usually describing unearthed human remains. Unlike in the case of strongholds, the place-lore concerning burial sites is less likely to refer to the original use of sites, which indicates that many of them were “forgotten” by locals after the end of use. The fieldwork in the wetlands did not uncover any new archaeological finds. The main reason could be the difficulties of doing wetland archaeology. The place-lore may also be misleading with regard to all three types of archaeological sites, but it is also not possible to state categorically that in the past people did not interact with these sites. The results of this study show how important place-lore has and can be in determining archaeological sites. However, one has to keep in mind how place-lore emerges and the character of the information it tends to pass on.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PLACE-LORE AS A TOOL TO IDENTIFY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES\",\"authors\":\"Pikne Kama\",\"doi\":\"10.3176/ARCH.2017.2.01\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article I present an analysis of how place-lore has and can be used as a tool to identify archaeological sites. The focus was upon three types of sites: prehistoric strongholds; burial sites on dry land; wetland sites with potential human remains. In the first part, the prehistoric strongholds in historical Võrumaa County are discussed, followed in the second part by the burial sites in Karula Parish. The aim was to answer the questions “How many of these sites had been identified using folklore (including place names)?”, “How did this place-lore form and what kind of information does it pass on?” and “How did identifications in folklore or on the basis of folklore relate to the archaeological evidence at these places?” In third part my own fieldwork, undertaken at wetlands selected on the basis of folklore that referred to human remains, is presented. Analysis of the prehistoric strongholds showed that in general they were identified on the basis of folklore. However, other potential stronghold sites that occur in place-lore remain unconfirmed by archaeological evidence. In the case of some of these sites, a lack of confirmation may be owing to inadequate archaeological investigation. Almost all burial places in Karula Parish have been identified using place-lore, usually describing unearthed human remains. Unlike in the case of strongholds, the place-lore concerning burial sites is less likely to refer to the original use of sites, which indicates that many of them were “forgotten” by locals after the end of use. The fieldwork in the wetlands did not uncover any new archaeological finds. The main reason could be the difficulties of doing wetland archaeology. The place-lore may also be misleading with regard to all three types of archaeological sites, but it is also not possible to state categorically that in the past people did not interact with these sites. The results of this study show how important place-lore has and can be in determining archaeological sites. However, one has to keep in mind how place-lore emerges and the character of the information it tends to pass on.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2017.2.01\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3176/ARCH.2017.2.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在这篇文章中,我提出了一种分析,即地方爱是如何被用作识别考古遗址的工具的。重点是三种类型的遗址:史前要塞;陆地上的墓地;可能有人类遗骸的湿地。第一部分对历史上Võrumaa县的史前要塞进行了论述,第二部分对卡鲁拉教区的墓葬遗址进行了论述。目的是回答以下问题:“这些遗址中有多少是通过民间传说(包括地名)确定的?”、“这种对地方的热爱是如何形成的?它传递了什么样的信息?”以及“民间传说或基于民间传说的鉴定如何与这些地方的考古证据联系起来?”在第三部分,介绍了我自己在湿地进行的实地考察,这些湿地是根据与人类遗骸有关的民间传说选择的。对史前要塞的分析表明,一般来说,它们是根据民间传说确定的。然而,其他可能出现在地方传说中的据点仍未得到考古证据的证实。就其中一些遗址而言,由于考古调查不充分,可能无法得到证实。卡鲁拉教区几乎所有的墓地都是用地方传说来确定的,通常描述的是出土的人类遗骸。与要塞的情况不同,关于墓地的地方传说不太可能是指遗址的原始用途,这表明许多遗址在使用结束后被当地人“遗忘”了。湿地的田野调查没有发现任何新的考古发现。主要原因可能是做湿地考古的困难。关于这三种类型的考古遗址,人们对地方的喜爱也可能会产生误导,但也不可能断然地说,过去人们没有与这些遗址有过互动。这项研究的结果表明,在确定考古遗址的过程中,对地点的喜爱是多么重要。然而,人们必须记住,地方爱是如何产生的,以及它倾向于传递的信息的特征。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
查看原文
PLACE-LORE AS A TOOL TO IDENTIFY ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
In this article I present an analysis of how place-lore has and can be used as a tool to identify archaeological sites. The focus was upon three types of sites: prehistoric strongholds; burial sites on dry land; wetland sites with potential human remains. In the first part, the prehistoric strongholds in historical Võrumaa County are discussed, followed in the second part by the burial sites in Karula Parish. The aim was to answer the questions “How many of these sites had been identified using folklore (including place names)?”, “How did this place-lore form and what kind of information does it pass on?” and “How did identifications in folklore or on the basis of folklore relate to the archaeological evidence at these places?” In third part my own fieldwork, undertaken at wetlands selected on the basis of folklore that referred to human remains, is presented. Analysis of the prehistoric strongholds showed that in general they were identified on the basis of folklore. However, other potential stronghold sites that occur in place-lore remain unconfirmed by archaeological evidence. In the case of some of these sites, a lack of confirmation may be owing to inadequate archaeological investigation. Almost all burial places in Karula Parish have been identified using place-lore, usually describing unearthed human remains. Unlike in the case of strongholds, the place-lore concerning burial sites is less likely to refer to the original use of sites, which indicates that many of them were “forgotten” by locals after the end of use. The fieldwork in the wetlands did not uncover any new archaeological finds. The main reason could be the difficulties of doing wetland archaeology. The place-lore may also be misleading with regard to all three types of archaeological sites, but it is also not possible to state categorically that in the past people did not interact with these sites. The results of this study show how important place-lore has and can be in determining archaeological sites. However, one has to keep in mind how place-lore emerges and the character of the information it tends to pass on.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信