臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：卑南遺址史前聚落形成與發展之研究
作者：葉長庚
作者(外文)：Chang-Keng Yeh
校院名稱：國立臺灣大學
系所名稱：人類學研究所
指導教授：陳有貝
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2017
主題關鍵詞：卑南遺址；聚落型態；建築結構；石板棺墓葬；植物矽酸體；稻作農業；遺址形成過程；the Peinan Site；settlement pattern；building structure；slate coffin burial；phytolith；rice agriculture；site-formation process
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(1) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:1
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:4
卑南遺址為臺灣重要考古遺址，出土有東亞地區最大的石板棺墓葬群、大量精美的史前玉器、並與保留史前聚落的建築結構。從臺灣考古學發展初期，卑南遺址即受到許多學者的關注，進行過多次的調查與考古發掘；1980年，因開發需求而進行共13次的考古搶救發掘作業，過程中出土上千座石板棺墓葬與大量陪葬品，相關資料也成就了卑南遺址許多重要考古研究。後續，為進一步解卑南遺址的分布範圍與文化內涵，陸續進行了幾次考古試掘工作；最近，在劃設國定考古遺址範圍後，於2010年開始為期3年的「卑南文化公園二期範圍卑南遺址短期考古發掘計畫」。本論文研究動機即源於此計畫的執行，筆者嘗試將幾十年來卑南遺址考古發掘探坑資料進行整合，過程中對於卑南遺址史前聚落型態、建築結構配置模式、聚落分布空間以及所在環境資料間的關聯性產生興趣，並期望瞭解史前人群為何選擇檳榔四格山山前沖積扇定居，以及如何利用此地區之環境資源，使得卑南遺址的史前聚落得以形成與發展成如此規模。
本研究援引遺址形成過程、聚落考古學、地景考古學等考古學理論為架構，嘗試藉由GIS整合卑南遺址歷年考古發掘資料、地層鑽探岩芯資料、地球物理探測資料、碳樣定年資料、植物矽酸體分析資料等研究材料，透過空間分析針對文化層堆積與分布情形、聚落型態、生業型態等議題進行論述，以瞭解史前人群如何在卑南遺址構築聚落的布局與建築結構的配置模式，以及對環境的運用與認知情況。
為了瞭解卑南遺址文化層的分布情形，進行了不同方式的地物探測作業以及2次地層鑽探作業，並且考古發掘探坑掌握與文化層有關之形成過程因素，再以GIS彙整於卑南遺址DTM資料上，經過分析與運算即可呈現出文化層分布之情形。整體而言，不同於現今卑南遺址呈西高東低的地勢，史前時期文化層分布呈東側高於西側之情形，且在遺址西南側存在較低凹之區域，可能局部屬河相沉積物環境，而源自檳榔四格山之沖積礫石層呈西北─東南向尖滅之現象；另外，在定年資料上，呈現北側區域文化層形成年代早於南側之現象。
對於聚落型態的分析，延續遺址形成過程的框架，透過空間分析探討地層中建築結構與石板棺墓葬帶間壓疊關係的形成模式，提出不同於過去「室內葬」的論述，從建築結構空間分布以及聚落布局發展推論史前人群應採取區塊式構築其聚落布局空間，並且一組區塊的聚落布局模式呈西側墓葬帶、中央砌石圈帶與東側建築結構帶等，其中建築結構的配置模式由西向東則為「小住屋」、「立石結構」、「舖石地面」。將此卑南遺址史前聚落型態之模式概念化後，可藉由考古發掘出土相關線索推測史前聚落的分布情形與範圍，且聚落發展呈現出人群由東向西進行土地利用的能動性。
植物矽酸體分析至2010年始引入卑南遺址研究中，過去對於卑南遺址生業型態的討論上，一般認為是個富足強盛的史前聚落，但實際進行生業型態議題的研究，卻如同其出土的生態遺留一樣稀少，筆者引進植物矽酸體分析研究方式應用於卑南遺址嘗試找尋新資料的可能性。藉由其它學者的努力，確認卑南遺址存在稻米且經種屬判定為秈稻，並暗示其農作發達的前提下，本研究進一步針對文化層土樣進行植物矽體定量分析，確定史前人群曾在卑南遺址進行長時間且大規模的稻作農業行為，其產量與水稻農作相當。而且稻屬矽酸體的發現與文化層的分布極為密切，可能是支撐卑南文化發展的主要動力來源。
整體而言，卑南遺址大約3500-2700B.P.間，卑南文化從發展出區塊式聚落模式到結束，主要來自於對環境的理解與適應，形成一套持續發展的聚落布局模式與稻作生業型態，卑南文化層在檳榔四格山沖積礫石層的覆蓋下結束，伴隨著前述重要文化行為的停止，不過，在卑南文化發展期間卻展現出人群與環境間的能動性。
The motivation of this paper was derived from the Peinan Site Excavation Project Phase Two, which is the most recent excavation project started from 2010 by the excavation team in a three-year plan. The Peinan Site, the most important archaeology site in Taiwan, has the largest excavation of slate coffin burial groups, obtains the greatest amount of elegant prehistoric jades, and preserves the most abundant ancient settlement’s building structure in East Asia. The Peinan Site has been the most explored archaeological site (by scholars and researchers) from the very beginning of our Taiwan Archaeology History. Back in the 1980’s, archaeologists had conducted up to 13 rescue excavations from the fast-urban development requirement in the Peinan Site area. The rescue, thus, unveiled thousands of slate coffin burials and saved large numbers of burial grave goods from the development; in which the saved data and information had contributed many important archaeological insights for the later studies of the Peinan Site. Thus the Peinan Site Excavation Project Phase Two is the most recent significant excavation project to deepened and further understand the distribution range and cultural content of this important prehistoric site. This paper is to integrate decades of archaeological excavation data of the Peinan Site, in which includes all my interest in the pattern of prehistory settlement, the layout of building structure, the distribution of settlement, and the relevance of its environmental data. My goal is to unveil the reason the Peinan Culture people choose to settle down in the alluvial fan in front of the Pinlang-Sihge Mountain, and understand the way they use environmental resources to form and develop the Peinan prehistory settlement into such a scale.
To fully understand the layout of the prehitoric settlements and the building structures, as well as the usage and awareness of environment in the Peinan Site, this study cited archaeological theory of site-formation processes, settlement archeology and landscape archeology. This study also combined and integrated the excavation data over the years, the drilling data of the stratums, the geophysical prospecting data, the carbon dating data, and the phytolith analysis data of the Peinan Site through GIS; and further analyzed through spatial analysis to discuss the accumulation and distribution of cultural layer, the settlement pattern, and the means of livelihood.
To understand the distribution of cultural layer in the Peinan Site, I used different methods of geophysical prospect, two significant stratigraphic drilling work, and several archaeological excavations to master the formation process factors relevant to cultural layer. I also further used GIS to integrate the DTM data of the Peinan Site. After overall analysis and back and forth operation, it now shows the distribution of culture layer. To our finding, unlike the present terrain of the Peinan Site which is higher in the west side and lower in the east side, the stratum of culture layer showed in an opposite conclusion: the east side was higher than the west side in prehistoric period. Moreover, there was a relatively concave area in the southwest side, which may be part of the river sedimentary environment; the distribution of the alluvial gravel stratum from the Pinlang-Sihge Mountain was northwest to southeast; and the dating data also showed that the formation of the north side of cultural layer was earlier than the south side.
From the analysis of settlement pattern point of view, I propose a dissertation different from the "interior burial" theory by using spatial analytical method in discussing the formation pattern of the folding relationship between the building structure and the slate coffin burial area in the stratum: the Peinan Culture people used to build their settlement in a block-shaped layout, which followed the framework of the building structure distribution and the settlement layout. The framework of the block was placed as the following pattern: the burial zone in the west side, the masonry circle zone in the central, and the building structure zone in the east side; the building structure was called as "small housing", "standing stone structure" and "stone paving floor" in correspondent from the west to the east side. After conceptionizing the prehistoric settlement pattern of the Peinan Site, we can suppose the distribution and the range of the prehistoric settlement through excavation data, and have the following hypothesis: the prehistoric people’s agency arose in their landscape usage and development began from the east side to the west side.
The phytolith analysis was introduced into the research of the Peinan Site in 2010. The Peinan Site was considered as the most prosperous prehistoric settlement in the research of its livelihood. However, the study of the means of livelihood is as scarce as the ecological remains unearthed. Therefore, I brought in phytolith analysis to the Peinan Site research to find more and further information. Through other scholar’s efforts, the Peinan Site was confirmed to have rice, which the species was identified as Indica rice and fully implied the advanced development of agriculture. In this study, I conducted a quantitative analysis from soil samples of the cultural layer to further indicate that there was a long-term and large-scale of rice farming behavior in prehistoric population in the Peinan Site, which the yield was like wetland rice farming. Moreover, the discovery of rice phytolith was closely related to the distribution of cultural layer and may be the main driving source for the development of the Peinan Culture.
In general, The Peinan Site had existed during 3500B.P. to 2700B.P., its culture development was established base on their ancient’s fully understanding and adaptation of the environment, forming a set of sustainable development of the settlement layout and rice agricultural livelihood. Even though the Peinan culture ended from the alluvial gravel layer’s debris flow from the Pinlang-Sihge Mountain, which eliminated all preceding important cultural behaviors; however, the development of the Peinan Culture had showed great activity agency and association between the people and the environment.
Abrahams, Peter W., Jane A. Entwistle, and Rober A. Dodgshon
2010The Ben Lawers Historic Landscape Project: Simultaneous Multi-element Analysis of Former Settlement and Arable Soils by X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17:231-248.
Adams, Kenneth D., et al.
2008Late Pleisticene and Early Holocene Lake-Level Fluctuations in the Lahontan Basin, Nevada Implications for Distribution of Archaeological Sites. Geoarchaeology 23（5）:608-643.
Adderley, W. P., I.A. Simpson, et al.
2008Local-Scale Adaptations: A Modeled Assessment of Soil, Landscape, Microclimatic, and Management Factors in Norse Home-Field Productivities. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 23（4）: 500-527.
Bender, Barbara
1993Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Berg Publishers, Oxford.
2002Time and Landscape. Current Anthropology 43:103-112.
Bottari, Carla, Stathis C. Stiros, and Antoio Teramo
2009Archaeological Evidence for Destructive Earthquakes in Sicily Between 400 B.C. and A.D. 600. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 24（2）:147-175.
Bourdieu, P.
1977Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Byerly, Ryan M., et al.
2005On Bonfire Shelter（Texas） as A Paleoindian Bison Jump: An Assessment Using GIS and Zooarchaeology, American Antiquity 70（4）:595-629.
Chang, K. C.
1968Settlement Archaeology. National Press Books.
Contreras, Daniel A.
2010Landscape and Environment: Insights from the Prehispanic Central Andes. Journal of Archaeological Research 18（3）:241-288.
Cooney, Gabriel
2000Landscapes of Neolithic Ireland. Routledge, London
Goldberg, Paul and Richard I. Macphail
2006Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology. Blackwell Science Ltd, Malden.
Hassan, F. A.
1979Geoarchaeology: The Geologist and Archaeology. American Antiquity 44（2）:267-270.
Hodder, Ian
1999The Natural Sciences in Archaeology. In The Archaeological Process: An Introduction, PP.105-116. Blackwell, Massachusetts.
Hirsch, E.
1995Landscape: between place and space. In E. Hirsch and M. O’Hanlon (eds), The Anthropology of Landescape,1-30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Eric E.
2006Using Viewshed Analysis to Explore Settlement Choice: A Case Study of the Onondaga Iroquois, American Antiquity 71（3）:523-538.
Knapp, A. Bernard and Wendy and Ashmore
1999Archaeological Landscapes: Constructed, Conceptualized, and Ideational. In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, pp. 1-32, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Lamotta, Vincent M. and Michael B. Schiffer
2000Behavioral Archaeology – Toward a New Synthesis. Archaeological Theoty Today, pp. 14-64, edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Lock, Gary R. and Trevor M. Harris
1996Danebury Revisited: An England Iron Age Hillfrot in a Digital Landscape. In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, pp. 214-240, edited by M. Aldenderfer and H. Maschner. Oxfore University, New York.
Lun-Tao Tong, Kun-Hsiu Lee, Chang-Keng Yeh, Yan-Tsong Hwang, Jeng-Ming Chien
2013Geophysical study of the Peinan Archaeological Site, Taiwan. Journal of Applied Geophysics 89: 1-10.
Maschner, Herbert D. G.
1996The Politics of Settlement Choice on the Northwest Coast: Cognition, GIS, and Coastal Landscapes. In Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems, pp. 175-189, edited by M. Aldenderfer and H. Maschner. Oxfore University, New York.
Plog, Stephen
2011The Contribution of Behavioral Archaeology and the Research of Michael B. Schiffer to the Discipline. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 18: 278-283.
Quinian, A. R. and A. Woody
2003Marks of Distribution: Rock Art and Ethnic Identification in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68（2）: 372-390.
Reid, J. Jefferson
1995Four Strategies After Twenty Years: A Return to Basics. In Expanding Archaeology, pp. 15-21, edited James M. Skibo, William L. Walker, and Axel E. Nielsen. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1972Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37（2）:156-165.
1987Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Snead, James E. and Robert W. Preucel
1999The Ideology of Settl1ment: Ancestral Keres Landscapes in the Northern Rio Grande, In Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, pp. 169-197, edited by Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Thomas, Julian
2001Archaeologies of Place and Landscape. In Archaeological Theory Today, pp. 165-186, edited by Ian Hodder. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Tilley, Christopher
1994The Social Construction of Landscape in Small-Scale Societies: Structures of Meaning, Structures of Power. In A Phenomenology of Landscape: Places, Paths and Monuments, pp. 35-67.
Trigger, Bruce G.
1996A History of Archaeological Thought（Second edition）. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Van der Leeuw, S., and Redman, C.
2002Placing archaeology at the center of socio-natural studies. American Antiquity 67: 597–605.
Wells, E. Christian
2010Sampling Design and Inferential Bias in Archaeological Soil Chemistry. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17（3）:209-230.
Willey, G. R.
1953Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Viru Valley, Peru. Washington, DC, Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin no. 155.
Wiseman, James
2007Environment Deterioration and Human Agency in Ancient Macedonia: A Case Study. Geoarchaeology: An International Journal 22（1）:85-110.
王強
1984《臺東縣卑南史前遺址的地下層位研究》，國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
王執明與王乾盈
1991《卑南文化公園基地附近地質調查》。臺東：國立臺灣史前文化博物館。
宇田津徹朗
2005〈プラント‧オパール〉，《環境考古學マニュアル》，松井章編，頁138-146。東京：同成社。
朱正宜
1990《臺東縣馬武窟溪口新石器時代遺址之調查研究》。國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
宋文薰、連照美
1985《卑南遺址發掘資料整理第二卷：墓葬分析》。教育部委託國立臺灣大學人類學系執行。
1987《卑南遺址第9-10次發掘工作報告》。國立臺灣大學考古人類學專刊第八種。
1988《卑南遺址第11-13次發掘工作報告》。國立臺灣大學考古人類學專刊第十二種。
2004《卑南考古發掘1980~1982：遺址概況、堆積層次及生活層出土遺物分析》。臺北：臺大出版中心。
宋韻如
2013《卑南遺址房屋建築之研究》，國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
李坤修
1987《卑南文化實用陶容器之分析研究》，國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
1993〈卑南文化公園民國八十一、八十二年考古試掘報告〉。《國立史前文化博物館籌備處通訊》2：1-46。
2002〈卑南遺址的新發現及新問題〉。《臺東文獻》復刊7：40-71。
2010〈卑南遺址的發掘與遺址範圍的認識〉，《文化驛站》27：4-9。
李坤修、葉美珍
2001《臺東縣史．史前篇》。臺東：臺東縣政府。
2009《卑南遺址範圍調查研究計畫期末報告》。臺東縣政府文化暨觀光處委託，國立臺灣史前文化博物館執行。
李坤修、葉美珍及楊淑玲
1994〈一級古蹟卑南遺址遭破壞區善後處理考古計畫工作報告〉。《國立史前文化博物館籌備處通訊》3：37-63
金關丈夫、國分直一著，譚繼山譯
1990《台灣考古誌》。臺北：武陵。
倫福儒與巴恩主編，陳勝前譯
2012《考古學：關鍵概念》。北京：中國人民大學出版社。
張光直
1999《考古學專題六講》（再版三刷）。臺北：稻鄉出版社。
國立臺灣史前文化博物館
2009《「卑南文化公園二期範圍卑南遺址短期考古發掘計畫」發掘計畫書》。臺東：國立臺灣史前文化博物館。
陳玉美
2003〈考古學中人與環境關係的研究：以Site Catchment為例〉，《國立臺灣大學考古人類學刊》60:97-114。
陳有貝
2011《卑南遺址史前植物遺留分析研究第一期計畫：矽酸體研究之可行性評估結案報告書》。國立臺灣史前文化博物館委託國立臺灣大學人類學系執行。
陳文山
2011《卑南遺址陶質標本成份分析第一期研究計畫：陶質標本委託切片與初步分析研究計畫結案報告書》。國立臺灣史前文化博物館委託國立臺灣大學人類學系執行。
郭素秋
1995《臺東縣馬武窟溪流域史前遺址調查與研究》。國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
連照美
1989《台東縣卑南文化公園考古試掘報告》。國立台灣大學考古人類學專刊第十五種。
1991〈臺灣東部新石器時代卑南聚落形態初探〉，在《考古與歷史文化—慶祝高去尋先生八十大壽論文集（上）》，頁125-140，宋文薰、李亦園、許倬雲、張光直主編。臺北：正中。
2000〈考古學的理論與實踐—卑南研究二十年〉，《國立臺灣大學考古人類學刊》55:5-31。
2003《台灣新石器時代卑南研究論文集》。臺北：國立歷史博物館。
2008《臺灣新石器時代卑南墓葬層位之分析研究》。臺北：國立臺灣大學。
連照美、宋文薰
2006《卑南遺址發掘1986-1989》。臺北：國立臺灣大學出版中心。
鹿野忠雄
1930〈臺灣東海岸巨石文化遺跡に就て（一）（二）〉。《人類學雜誌》45（7）：273-285；（9）：362-374
1952《東南亞細亞民族學先史學研究 第Ⅱ卷》。東京：矢島書房。
康芸甯
2013《以植物矽酸體分析和陶器壓痕翻模法探討卑南遺址的植物遺留》。國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
曾允孚、夏文杰
1986《沉积岩石學》。北京：地質出版社。
黃士強
1991〈從東河地區談東海岸史前文化及有關問題〉，《田野考古》2（1）：1-29。
黃國恩
2012〈卑南遺址歷次發掘出土墓葬數量的考察〉，《文化驛站》31：40-46。
葉美珍
1987《卑南文化農業型態之探討》。國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
2005《卑南遺址石板棺研究：以1993-1994年發掘資料為例》。臺東：臺東縣政府、國立臺灣史前文化博物館。
2009〈卑南遺址大事記〉，《文化驛站》26：8-13。
葉長庚
2010〈卑南遺址的發現與研究回顧〉，在《卑南文化公園展示規劃研究期末報告書》，頁249-290。國立臺灣史前文化博物館委託雨耕聯合設計執行。
2014〈UAV技術於考古學的應用：以卑南遺址為例〉，《宋文薰教授九秩華誕慶祝活動暨2013年度臺灣考古工作會報會議論文集》（光碟版）。
2016〈更上半層樓：卑南遺址出土石梯之研究〉，《考古人類學刊》85：139-172。
董倫道
2009《卑南文化公園二期計畫土地地球物理探測期末報告》。新竹：工業技術研究院。
2011〈卑南遺址地物探測與考古議題整合第一期研究計畫工作報告〉，在《2010年臺灣考古工作會報研討會論文集（上冊）》，頁6-Ⅱ-1~6-Ⅱ-20，國立臺灣史前文化博物館主辦，2011年5月28-30日於國立臺灣史前文化博物館國際會議廳舉行。
趙金勇
2000〈東海岸長濱地區史前遺址空間分佈初探〉，《田野考古》7（1/2）：19-44。
顏一勤
2011《卑南遺址地層鑽探委託作業計畫》。國立臺灣史前文化博物館委託，顏一勤應用地質技師事務所執行。
簡天祥
2004《卑南遺址內部空間分析―試以群集分析與主成份分析探討文化層石器分佈及其意義》。國立臺灣大學人類學研究所碩士論文。
藤原宏志
1976〈プラント˙オパール分析法の基礎的研究（1）—数種イネ科植物の珪酸体標本と定量分析法〉。《考古学と自然科学》9：15-29。
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：871（臺灣：870，外國：1） ／ 本年度總使用人次：1855660 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67675361
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上