北京师范大学学报:社会科学版
北京師範大學學報:社會科學版
북경사범대학학보:사회과학판
Journal of Beijing Normal University(Social Science Edition)
2009年
4期
88~103
,共null页
今本《竹书纪年》 中国古年代 夏商周断代工程
今本《竹書紀年》 中國古年代 夏商週斷代工程
금본《죽서기년》 중국고년대 하상주단대공정
the "present version" of the Bamboo Annals ; China in remote time; the identification program of the three generations of Xia, Shang and Zhou
《〈竹书纪年〉解谜》一书讨论了“今本”《竹书纪年》对研究中国上古年代的重要性,认为任何恢复准确年代的企图都必须从分析“今本”《竹书纪年》开始——而此却被夏商周断代工程完全忽略了。书中以“今本”《纪年》为基础,结合古代天文和历法的研究成果,提出《纪年》记载的在位年数通常是从完成对先君的服丧期之后算起的假设,确定克商的具体时间为公元前1040年4月18日,并提供了夏商周三代的具体编年。接着对断代工程做了评论,表明断代工程的方法和结论并不完全可靠。最后,重构了《竹书纪年》原始文本的前303条竹简,讨论分析了商周递嬗之际的年代,并认为“今本”《纪年》是战国时魏人对真实年代篡改的结果。附录提供了更多的资料,对断代工程在确定商代后期事件时间的问题上提出质疑。
《〈竹書紀年〉解謎》一書討論瞭“今本”《竹書紀年》對研究中國上古年代的重要性,認為任何恢複準確年代的企圖都必鬚從分析“今本”《竹書紀年》開始——而此卻被夏商週斷代工程完全忽略瞭。書中以“今本”《紀年》為基礎,結閤古代天文和歷法的研究成果,提齣《紀年》記載的在位年數通常是從完成對先君的服喪期之後算起的假設,確定剋商的具體時間為公元前1040年4月18日,併提供瞭夏商週三代的具體編年。接著對斷代工程做瞭評論,錶明斷代工程的方法和結論併不完全可靠。最後,重構瞭《竹書紀年》原始文本的前303條竹簡,討論分析瞭商週遞嬗之際的年代,併認為“今本”《紀年》是戰國時魏人對真實年代篡改的結果。附錄提供瞭更多的資料,對斷代工程在確定商代後期事件時間的問題上提齣質疑。
《〈죽서기년〉해미》일서토론료“금본”《죽서기년》대연구중국상고년대적중요성,인위임하회복준학년대적기도도필수종분석“금본”《죽서기년》개시——이차각피하상주단대공정완전홀략료。서중이“금본”《기년》위기출,결합고대천문화역법적연구성과,제출《기년》기재적재위년수통상시종완성대선군적복상기지후산기적가설,학정극상적구체시간위공원전1040년4월18일,병제공료하상주삼대적구체편년。접착대단대공정주료평론,표명단대공정적방법화결론병불완전가고。최후,중구료《죽서기년》원시문본적전303조죽간,토론분석료상주체선지제적년대,병인위“금본”《기년》시전국시위인대진실년대찬개적결과。부록제공료경다적자료,대단대공정재학정상대후기사건시간적문제상제출질의。
The book of the Riddle of the Bamboo Annals discusses the importance of the "present version" of the Annals for studying the ancient China. It holds that any attempt that aims to recover the exact time must start with analyzing the Upresent version", which has, hc'vever, been entirely ignored. The book, based on the Upresent version" of the Annals and in regard to the ancient findings in astronomy and calendar, puts forward that the exact time the Shang Dynasty fell should be April 18,1040 BC, and hence provides the annals of Xia, Shang, and Zhou. It then makes a comment on the program of three generations, indicating that the methodology and conclusion for their identificatoin is not accurate at all. It finally reconstructs the original text out of the preceding 303 bamboo pieces, discusses the year transiting from Shang to Zhou, and concludes that the "present version" should be a distorted result of the true time by someone in Wei Dynasty. The appendix supplies more materials with doubts over the time of events in the later period of Shang.