查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 敦煌、居延若干曆簡年代考釋與質疑=A Query and Textual Research on the Dates of Some Calendar Slips at Dunhuang and Juyan |
---|---|
作者姓名(中文) | 羅見今; 關守義; | 書刊名 | 漢學研究 |
卷期 | 15:2=30 1997.12[民86.12] |
頁次 | 頁37-50 |
分類號 | 796.8 |
關鍵詞 | 考古; 年代學; 曆簡; 敦煌; 居延; Archaeology; Chronology; Calendar slip; Dunhuang; Juyan; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 《漢簡綴述》稱在敦煌、居延曆簡中有15年的年代已被推定。本文在重考這些曆 譜時,發現有三年的考釋結果可疑,有兩簡的出處待查。我們認為:298 號簡沙畹考為永興 元年,當為元康元年,羅振玉考釋此簡的方法、結論均有誤;王國維、張鳳編號 49:5 的建 安 10 年曆 (697 號簡 ) 當為永始 4 年,以上兩簡的年代均被原考推遲了 217 年。 陳夢 家將居延 37.40 號簡考為永元 17 年不能成立, 對此著重進行了討論,認為將它考為五鳳 2 年是適宜的。 另外,我們找出年代未經考釋約兩曆譜簡 (503.5 號和 27.18 號 ),經推 群與分析,認為應當分別屬於元延元年和天鳳 2 年,提出供研究者參考。 |
英文摘要 | It has been said in A Statement on Slips in the Han Dynasty that the dates for 15 years of calendar slips at Dunhuang and Juyan have beendetermined. In this paper, we reexamine these slips, and find that thedates for three slips are wrong and the sources of two slips are questionable. We hold that the year of slip no. 298 should be 65 B.C., rather than153 A.D. as determined by Edouard Chavannes, and that neither the research methods used nor the conclusions made by Luo Zhenyu are correct. Moreoer, the year of slip no. 697 determined by Wang Guowei,205 A.D., should be changed to 13 B.C. The dates originally determinedfor the above two calendar slips are both off by 217 years. We find the conclusion by Chen Mengjia that the year of slip no.37.40 is 105 A.D. to be untenable. We discuss this issue at length, andmake our own conclusion that the correct year for this slip should be 56B.C. In addition, we have studied and analyzed another two undetermined calendar slips: no. 503.5 and no. 27.18, and hold that their datesare 12 B.C. and 15 A.D., respectively. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。