跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(18.97.14.87) 您好!臺灣時間:2025/02/09 10:31
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:涂勤慧
研究生(外文):Cheng-Hui Thu
論文名稱:陶容器製作技術風格分析—台南科學園區北三舍遺址研究為例
論文名稱(外文):Ceramics from Peisanshe site, Tainan Science-based Industrial Park: Analysis of Vessel Forming Technological Style
指導教授:臧振華臧振華引用關係黃士強黃士強引用關係
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:人類學研究所
學門:人文學門
學類:人類學學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2004
畢業學年度:93
語文別:中文
論文頁數:132
中文關鍵詞:大湖文化陶器分析技術風格技術選擇社會邊界
外文關鍵詞:Tahu cultureceramic analysistechnological styletechnical choicesocial boundary
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:1105
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:2
陶容器製作技術風格分析—
台南科學園區北三舍遺址研究為例

摘 要
近年來,台南科學工業園區(以下簡稱「南科」)內多次的搶救考古工作,已發現或發掘了許多考古遺址,出土考古遺物相當豐富。在南科的考古遺址中,屬於大湖文化烏山頭期 (約2,800-2,000 B.P.)者為數最多,其特色普遍使用灰黑色陶器;本文所研究的北三舍遺址即其中之一。
台灣西南地區的史前文化年代學,將出土灰黑陶之遺址皆劃分為新石期時代晚期的大湖文化。不過從烏山頭遺址出土陶器的形制和風格來看,與主要分佈在高雄地區的大湖文化雖被歸類為同一個考古文化的範疇,但兩者之間仍有明顯的差異。最近南科右先方南二遺址出土上下文化層的地層證據與遺物初步比較的結果顯示,大湖文化可區分為距今約3,300~2,800的大湖期與距今約2,800~2,000的烏山頭期,且兩者之間存在著傳承的關係。此外,在烏山頭期遺址之間,出土陶容器雖然皆以灰黑陶為主,但在容器形式與質地方面有明顯的不同,其他伴隨的文化現象,如墓葬行為亦呈現出顯著的差異。這是時間或是社群不同所造成的結果?尚需進一步研究。
近年,研究者透過民族誌的觀察發現,製作陶器的技術選擇及其技術風格,可以反映不同的文化或社會的邊界。因此,考古學家藉由出土陶器屬性的深入分析,瞭解其製作程序和製作技術的選擇,以進一步探討文化/社會邊界等議題。
本研究主要是利用陶片各種屬性分析,包括陶器的形制和裝飾風格、陶器質地和摻和料,及陶器的功能等,來探討北三舍遺址出土陶容器的製作技術風格,及其在認知與分類上的意義。筆者相信,烏山頭期確實是源於大湖文化的繼續發展,而本研究的分析結果也顯示,北三舍遺址出土的各式陶容器與各種製作技術間有其特別的相關性,並可進一步推測當時可能已有專業的陶工。筆者認為烏山頭期不同社會群體之差異,在陶容器製作方面,以創新的容器形式及不同的製作理念與認知,作為主動劃分與其他社群的差異。因此,筆者認為南科園區內出土烏山頭期的遺址在陶容器形式與其他文化表現上的不同,可能係反映了當時所形成的不同社會群體,而非時間差異所造成的結果。

關鍵字:大湖文化、陶器分析、技術風格、技術選擇、社會邊界
Ceramics from Peisanshe site, Tainan Science-based Industrial Park: Analysis of Vessel Forming Technological Style

Abstract

Salvage archaeology in the Tainan Science-based Industrial Park has uncovered abundant prehistoric sites for the past few years, especially the sites belonging to the Wusantou Phase of the Tahu Culture. This thesis is devoted to ceramic materials excavated from one of these blackware sites, the Peisanshe site, which also belongs to the Wusantou Phase of the Tahu culture.
In the past, most archaeologists classified sites with blackware as typical late Neolithic sites of the Tahu Culture found only in southwestern part of Taiwan. However, based on the vessel forms and pottery styles, pottery remains from Wusantou site exhibits obvious differences from those of the Tahu culture of Gaoxiong (Kaohsiung)area. The results generated from studying the stratigraphy and the ceramics of the Yousianfang south II site demonstrate that the Tahu culture can be further divided into two phases: the Tahu (3,300-2,800B.P.) and the Wusantou Phase (2,800-2,000B.P.), as the latter clearly developed out of the former. Even though the black ware can be found in various sites of the Wusantou Phase, there are lots of differences among these sites, such as vessel forms, pottery pastes, burial customs and etc. Whether these differences should be interpreted as temporal or social variations is still under debate.
Recently, ethnographic studies have proposed that social/cultural boundaries can also be observed from technical choices of how to “properly” produce a ceramic vessel in a given social/cultural setting. Archaeologists have also attempted to explore these potters’ choices during the manufacturing sequence in order to understand the transition of different pottery-making traditions. Moreover, archaeologists want to discuss issues related to the social/cultural identity and boundaries through the study of these technical choices.
This thesis aims to understand technical choices and classifications made by local potters during the pottery-making processes through attribute analysis, compositional analysis, and physical property and vessel functions. The result shows that certain technologies are employed to make particular vessel forms. I further argue that the production of ceramic vessels at this site was performed by professional potters specialized in making different vessel forms. Moreover, after comparing the ceramic vessel forms and textures collected from various sites belonging to both the Tahu and Wusantou Phase, I believe that pottery-making techniques of the Wusantou Phase were directly developed out of the previous Tahu Phase. However, during the Wusantou Phase, potters intentionally invented new vessel forms and technologies in order to mark the social differences. It can be observed not only in the ceramic technologies employed, but also in other cultural behaviors such as burial customs and settlement patterns that separate them from other group of people of the same period. Therefore, I propose that differences observed in terms of ceramic technologies and other cultural behaviors from various sites of the Wusantou Phase in the Tainan Science-based Industrial Park may reflect different behaviors of various contemporary social groups, instead of a result of temporal difference.

Keywords: Tahu culture, ceramic analysis, technological style, technical choice, social boundary
目 錄
第一章 緒論……………………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究動機
第二節 考古研究沿革與文獻回顧
第二章 研究目的與方法………………………………………………………8
第一節 研究問題與目的
第二節 陶器分析的理論架構
第三節 陶器的分析方法
第三章 研究對象與材料……………………………………………………25
第一節 北三舍遺址
第二節 取樣方法
第四章 陶容器形式與技術分析……………………………………………50
第一節 陶器部位厚度統計
第二節 各式口緣測量值統計
第三節 容器形式與製作技術之關係
第五章 北三舍遺址陶器製作技術與使用功能推測………………………73
第一節 陶器製作技術
第二節 陶容器形式與技術選擇
第三節 陶容器功能與製作技術的關係
第四節 陶容器形式與功能之推測
第六章 綜合討論……………………………………………………………85
第一節 文化傳承與社會邊界
第二節 專業陶工
第三節 小結
第七章 結論…………………………………………………………………95
引用書目………………………………………………………………………98
附錄……………………………………………………………………………104
圖版……………………………………………………………………………128
引 用 書 目
中、日文部分
甲野勇
1939 〈台灣烏山頭遺蹟發現の先史時代遺物〉,《人類學雜誌》54(4):34-38。
石璋如
1962 〈先史時代台灣與大陸的交通—從彩陶、黑陶、肩斧、段錛等研討〉,《台北文獻》2。
朱正宜
2004 〈南科右先方南二遺址出土之大湖期及烏山頭期遺留及其引起之問題〉,2004年台灣考古工作會報報告集,主辦單位:中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心考古學研究專題中心。(未出版)
佐山融吉
1923 〈佐山融吉氏よりの通信〉,《人類學雜誌》38(3):130-131。
宋文薰
1952 〈鹿野忠雄著:東南亞細亞的黑陶與紅陶〉,《台灣風物》2(3):23-28、2(4):14-15。
李光周
1978 〈墾丁史前遺址的發掘與其陶片的處理〉,《文史哲學報》27:285-346。
李坤修
1999 《二高路權範圍烏山頭遺址搶救發掘報告》,交通部台灣區國道新建工程局委託,工信工程股份有限公司及國立台灣史前文化博物館籌備處執行研究。
2002 《台南縣官田鄉烏山頭遺址範圍調查探勘計畫期末報告》,台南縣政府文化局委託,國立台灣史前文化博物館執行。
李匡悌等
2004 《三舍暨社內遺址受相關水利工程影響範圍搶救考古發掘工作計畫期末報告》,台南縣政府委託,中央研究院歷史語言研究所執行研究。
邱斯嘉
2004 〈從牛罵頭文化淺談陶器風格分析〉,2004年台灣考古工作會報報告集,主辦單位:中央研究院人文社會科學研究中心考古學研究專題中心。(未出版)

張光直
1993 《考古專題六講》,台北:稻鄉出版社
陳玉美
1980 《高雄縣大湖史前遺址》,國立台灣大學考古人類學研究碩士論文。
臧振華等
1993 《第二高速公路後續計畫規劃路線沿線文化遺址調查評估報告》,交通部台灣區國道新建工程局主辦,中鼎工程股份有限公司承辦,中央研究院歷史語言研究所執行研究。
1994 《台閩地區考古遺址—台南縣、台南市》,台閩地區考古遺址普查研究計畫(第二年),內政部委託,中央研究院歷史語言研究所執行研究。
2000 《高速鐵路南科段北三舍遺址搶救計畫期終工作報告》,交通部高速鐵路工程局委託,中央研究院歷史語言研究所辦理。
2004 《台南科學工業園區道爺遺址未劃入保存區部分搶救考古計畫期末報告》,南部科學工業園區管理局委託,中央研究院歷史語言研究所執行。


外文部分

Barclay, Katherine
2001 Scientific Analysis of Archaeological Ceramics: A Handbook of Resources. English Heritage.
Binford, Lewis R.
1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. American Antiquity 28(2):217-225.
1965 Archaeological Systematics and the Study of Culture Process. American Antiquity 31(2):203-210.
Bronitsky, Gordon and Robert Hamer
1986 Experiments in Ceramic Technology: The Effects of Various Tempering Materials on Impact and Thermal-Shock Resistance. American Antiquity 52(1):89-101.
Chilton, Elizabeth S.
1998 The Cultural Origins of Technical Choice: Unraveling Algonquian and Iroquoian Ceramic Traditions in the Northeast. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, ed. by Miriam T. Stark, pp.132-160. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washigton.
Chiu, Scarlett
2003 The Socio-economic Functions of Lapita Ceramic Production and Exchange: A Case Study from Site WKO013A, Koné, New Caledonia(Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, University of California, Berkeley)
Cochran, W. G., and G. M. Cox
1957 Experimental Designs. New York: John Wiely.
Costin, Cathy L.
2000 The Use of Ethnoarchaeology for the Archaeological Study of Ceramic Production. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 7(4):377-403.
Cowgill, George L.
1982 Clusters of Objects and Associations between Variables: Two Approaches to Archaeological Classification, in Essays on Archaeological typology, ed. by Whallon and J.A. Brown, pp. 30-55. Center for American Archaeology, Evanston.
Dietler, M., and Herbich, I.
1998 Habitus, Techniques, Style: An Integrated Approach to the Social Understanding of Material Culture and Boundaries. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, ed. by Miriam T. Stark, pp.232-263. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washigton.
Ericson, Jonathon E; De Atley Suzanne P.
1976 Reconstruction Ceramic Assemblages: An Experiment to Derive the Morphology and Capacity of Parent Vessels from Sherds. American Antiquity 41(4):484-489.
Gifford, James C.
1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity 25(3):341-347.
Goodby, Robert G.
1998 Technological Patterning and Social Boundaries: Ceramic Variability in Southern New England, A.D. 1000-1675. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, ed. by Miriam T. Stark, pp.161-182. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washigton.
Gosselain, Olivier P.
1992 Technology and Style: Potters and Pottery Among Bafia of Cameroon. Man, New Series, Vol. 27(3):559-586.
1998 Social and Technical Identity in a Clay Crystal Ball. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, ed. by Miriam T. Stark, pp.78-106. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washigton.
Hally, David J.
1986 The Identification of Vessel Function: A Case Study from Northwest Georgia. American Antiquity 51(2):267-295.
Henrickson Elizabeth F.; McDonald Mary M. A.
1983 Ceramic Form and Function: An Ethnographic Search and an Archaeological Application. American Anthropologist, New Series(3): 630-643.
Lechtman, H.
1977 Style in Technology. Some Early Thoughts. In Material Culture: Style, Organization and Dynamics of Technology, ed. by Lechtman & Merrill R. pp.3-20. West Publishing, New York.
Lemonnier, P.
1983 L’étude des Systèmes Techniques, une Urgence en Technologie Culturelle. Techniques Culture 1:11-26.
Linton, Ralph
1944 North American Cooking Pots. American Antiquity 9(4):369-380.
Longacre, W.A., Xia, Jingfeng and Yang, Tao
2000 I Want to Buy a Black Pot. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 7(4):273-293.
Miller, D.
1985 Artefacts as Categories: A Study of Ceramic Variability in Central India. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Phillips, Phillip
1958 Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley taxonomy to Eastern Ceramics. American Antiquity 24(2):117-125.
Rice, Prudence M.
1996 Pottery Analysis. The University of Chicago Press.
Rye, Owen S.
1981 Pottery Technology: Principles and Reconstruction. Taraxacum.

Sabloff, Jeremy A and Robert E. Smith
1969 The Importance of Both Analytic and Taxonomic Classification in the Type-Variety System. American Antiquity 34(3):278-285.
Schiffer, Michael B. and James M. Skibo
1987 Theory and Experiment in the Study of Technological Changes. Current Anthropology 28(5):595-622.
Sears, William H.
1960Ceramic Systems and Eastern Archaeology. American Antiquity 25(3):324-329.
Shannan, S.
1988 Quantifying Archaeology. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
Skibo, James M.
1992 Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. New York: Plenum Press.
Smith, Marion F.
1985 Toward An Economic Interpretation of Ceramics: Relating Vessel Size and Shape to Use. In Decoding Prehistoric Ceramics, ed. by B.A. Nelson, pp.254-309. Southern Illnois Press, Carbondale.
Smith, Robert E.; Willey, Gorden R.; Gifford, James C.
1960The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity 25(3):330-340.
Stark Miriam T.
1998 Technical Choices and Social Boundaries in Material Culture Patterning: An Introduction. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, ed. by Miriam T. Stark, pp.1-11. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washigton.
2003 Current Issues in Ceramic Ethnoarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 11(3):193-242.
Stark Miriam T., Elson Mark D. and Clark Jeffery J.
1998 Social Boundaries and Technical Choice in Tonto Basin Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Social Boundaries, ed. by Miriam T. Stark, pp.208-231. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washigton.

Spaulding, Albert C.
1953 Statistical Techniques for the Discovery of Artifact Types. American Antiquity XVIII(4):305-313.
Tite, M. S.
1999 Pottery Production, Distribution and Consumption-The Contribution of the Physical Sciences. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6:181-233.
Van Der Leeuw, S.
1993Giving the Potter Choice: Conceptual Aspects of Pottery Techniques. In Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, ed. by Pieere Lemonnier pp.238-288. Routledge.
Vandiver, P. B.
1988 The Implications of Variation in Ceramic Technology: The Forming of Neolithic Storage Vessels in China and the Near East. Archaeomaterials 2:139-174.
Wentworth, C. K.
1992 A Scale of Grade and Class Terms for Clastic Sediments. Journal of Geology 30:377-392.
Wheat, Joe Ben; Gifford, James C.; Wasley, William W.
1958 Ceramic Variety, Type Cluster, and Ceramic System in Southwestern Pottery Analysis. American Antiquity 24(1):34-47.
Wobst, H. M.
1977Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Cleland, C. E.(ed.), For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, pp.317-342. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Anthropological Papers no. 61.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top