标准模型,极简主义者和极简主义者:对特里普利亚巨型遗址的新诠释。

IF 3.8 1区 历史学 Q1 ANTHROPOLOGY Journal of World Prehistory Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-09-02 DOI:10.1007/s10963-017-9106-7
John Chapman
{"title":"标准模型,极简主义者和极简主义者:对特里普利亚巨型遗址的新诠释。","authors":"John Chapman","doi":"10.1007/s10963-017-9106-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The currently prevailing view of the Trypillia mega-sites of the fourth millennium BC has been the dominant model for over 40 years: they were extra-large settlement examples of the Childean 'Neolithic package' of permanent settlement, domesticated plants and animals, and artifact assemblages containing polished stone tools and pottery. Trypillia mega-sites have therefore been viewed as permanent, long-term settlements comprising many thousands of people. This view of these extraordinary sites has been identical whatever the various opinions on their urban or other status. In recent mega-site publications, a maximalist gloss has been put on this standard view-with population estimates as high as 46,000 people (Rassmann et al. in J Neolit Archaeol 16: 96-134, 2014). However, doubts about the standard view have been emerging over the past two decades. As a result of the last six years' intensive investigations, a tipping point has been reached, with as many as nine lines of independent evidence combining to create such doubts that the only logical response is to replace the standard model (not to mention the maximalist model) with a version of the minimalist model that envisions a less permanent, more seasonal settlement mode, or a smaller permanent settlement involving coeval dwelling of far fewer people (the 'middle way'). In this article, I seek to construct an evidential basis for the alternatives to the standard view of Trypillia mega-sites.</p>","PeriodicalId":47061,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World Prehistory","volume":"30 3","pages":"221-237"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10963-017-9106-7","citationCount":"31","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Standard Model, the Maximalists and the Minimalists: New Interpretations of Trypillia Mega-Sites.\",\"authors\":\"John Chapman\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10963-017-9106-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The currently prevailing view of the Trypillia mega-sites of the fourth millennium BC has been the dominant model for over 40 years: they were extra-large settlement examples of the Childean 'Neolithic package' of permanent settlement, domesticated plants and animals, and artifact assemblages containing polished stone tools and pottery. Trypillia mega-sites have therefore been viewed as permanent, long-term settlements comprising many thousands of people. This view of these extraordinary sites has been identical whatever the various opinions on their urban or other status. In recent mega-site publications, a maximalist gloss has been put on this standard view-with population estimates as high as 46,000 people (Rassmann et al. in J Neolit Archaeol 16: 96-134, 2014). However, doubts about the standard view have been emerging over the past two decades. As a result of the last six years' intensive investigations, a tipping point has been reached, with as many as nine lines of independent evidence combining to create such doubts that the only logical response is to replace the standard model (not to mention the maximalist model) with a version of the minimalist model that envisions a less permanent, more seasonal settlement mode, or a smaller permanent settlement involving coeval dwelling of far fewer people (the 'middle way'). In this article, I seek to construct an evidential basis for the alternatives to the standard view of Trypillia mega-sites.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47061,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of World Prehistory\",\"volume\":\"30 3\",\"pages\":\"221-237\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s10963-017-9106-7\",\"citationCount\":\"31\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of World Prehistory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-017-9106-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/9/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of World Prehistory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10963-017-9106-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/9/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 31

摘要

目前流行的关于公元前四千年特里皮利亚大型遗址的观点已经主导了40多年:它们是Childean“新石器时代”永久定居点的超大定居点的例子,驯化的植物和动物,以及包含抛光石器和陶器的人工制品组合。因此,特里皮利亚大型遗址被视为由数千人组成的永久性长期定居点。无论对这些非凡遗址的城市或其他地位有何不同的看法,对它们的看法都是一样的。在最近的大型遗址出版物中,对这一标准观点进行了最大限度的解释——人口估计高达46,000人(Rassmann et al. J Neolit Archaeol 16: 96-134, 2014)。然而,对标准观点的质疑在过去二十年中不断出现。由于过去六年的密集调查,已经达到了一个临界点,多达9条独立的证据结合在一起,产生了这样的怀疑,唯一合乎逻辑的反应是用极简主义模型的一个版本取代标准模型(更不用说最大主义模型了),该模型设想了一个不那么永久的、更季节性的定居模式,或者一个更小的永久性定居,涉及更少的人(“中间道路”)。在这篇文章中,我试图构建一个证据基础,为特里皮利亚巨型遗址的标准观点的替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Standard Model, the Maximalists and the Minimalists: New Interpretations of Trypillia Mega-Sites.

The currently prevailing view of the Trypillia mega-sites of the fourth millennium BC has been the dominant model for over 40 years: they were extra-large settlement examples of the Childean 'Neolithic package' of permanent settlement, domesticated plants and animals, and artifact assemblages containing polished stone tools and pottery. Trypillia mega-sites have therefore been viewed as permanent, long-term settlements comprising many thousands of people. This view of these extraordinary sites has been identical whatever the various opinions on their urban or other status. In recent mega-site publications, a maximalist gloss has been put on this standard view-with population estimates as high as 46,000 people (Rassmann et al. in J Neolit Archaeol 16: 96-134, 2014). However, doubts about the standard view have been emerging over the past two decades. As a result of the last six years' intensive investigations, a tipping point has been reached, with as many as nine lines of independent evidence combining to create such doubts that the only logical response is to replace the standard model (not to mention the maximalist model) with a version of the minimalist model that envisions a less permanent, more seasonal settlement mode, or a smaller permanent settlement involving coeval dwelling of far fewer people (the 'middle way'). In this article, I seek to construct an evidential basis for the alternatives to the standard view of Trypillia mega-sites.

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
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: Aims and scopeJournal of World Prehistory is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed, original treatments of the prehistory of an area or larger region. It was founded nearly thirty years ago with the remit of providing researchers, instructors and students with timely and authoritative research syntheses from all fields of archaeology. Journal of World Prehistory continues to lead in this field. Our classic articles may be 20,000 or 25,000 words long, as appropriate (excluding their extensive bibliographies). Since 2008 they have been joined by shorter (around 10,000 words), position pieces, which provide in-depth, thoughtful development of data and concepts, including interventions in controversies that unfold in our pages. These, written in a fashion interesting and accessible to all archaeologists, are often paired with a longer treatment in a single volume. In addition, readers now benefit from thematic special issues and double issues, in which a number of leading authors deal with a key theme in world prehistory, such as the origins of metallurgy (2009, volumes 22: 3 and 4), or the East Asian Neolithic (2013, in preparation). All papers are available first online, followed by the print edition. We aim to be truly global in coverage, with recent articles dealing, inter alia, with Amazonian lithics, the late Jomon of Hokkaido, the Bronze Age in Southeast Asia, the Neanderthal settlement of Doggerland, Neolithic networks in Western Asia, younger Dryas Paleo-Indian adaptations, and state formation in the Horn of Africa. Articles benefit from multi-language abstracts where appropriate, and we work closely with authors who do not have English as a first language to present major syntheses in a clear and concise way to an international audience. Traditionally, JWP focuses on earlier periods, but it includes the beginnings and early development of complex societies, and our understanding of ‘prehistory’ is broad and inclusive: for guidance on chronological scope, as well as our calendrical conventions, see the editorial article ‘Prehistory vs. Archaeology: terms of Engagement’ http://www.springerlink.com/content/346142p032604447/ Our unique remit means that we do not encourage the submission of unsolicited papers; rather, specific proposals are encouraged and then guided prior to independent peer review. Our aims and the way we fulfil them, with close contact with authors throughout the publication process, mean that JWP is not a venue for the simple and rapid dissemination of new results. Whilst we expect scholarship to be current, with syntheses including much new data, our readers look to us for definitive area/period coverage that will have continuing value.If you are proposing an article or special theme for Journal of World Prehistory, please read the Instructions for authors.Rated ''A'' in the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH)?Journal of World Prehistory is rated ''A'' in the ERIH, a new reference index that aims to help evenly access the scientific quality of Humanities research output. For more information visit http://www.esf.org/research-areas/humanities/activities/research-infrastructures.htmlRated ''A'' in the Australian Research Council Humanities and Creative Arts Journal List. For more information, visit: http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list_dev.htm
期刊最新文献
Ivories in the Late Chalcolithic Period and Their Significance for Understanding Contacts Between Egypt and the Southern Levant Circulation of Goods and Information in Southern Patagonia During the Late Holocene: An Integrated Analysis of Engravings and Black Obsidian Artefacts Salt Mining and Salt Miners at Talkherud–Douzlākh, Northwestern Iran: From Landscape to Resource-Scape Prehistory to History: A New Archaeological Approach to Knowledge Transmission and the Inception of Literacy in Central Europe Patrilocality at the Beginning of Farming? An Isotopic Approach from SE Moravia
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1