摘要
《竹书纪年》《穆天子传》等汲冢竹书出土以来,长期受到学术界的高度重视,然迄今为止,汲冢书出土的年代、汲冢墓主及位置等若干关键性问题,仍存在着诸多无法破解的谜团。在材料并不具备、信息并不完整、证据并不充分的情况下,总体上先入为主地判定汲冢为战国晚期墓葬,并在此基础上讨论包括《穆天子传》《竹书纪年》在内的汲冢书的写定年代,则未免显得过于绝对和武断。20世纪90年代以来,大量来历不明、出土背景不清的各种流失简陆续整理出版。这些流失简的整理出版为中国古典学研究提供了丰富的新材料,同时引发了关于上博简、浙大简、清华简、北大简等流失简真伪的质疑、辨伪及若干答辩和反击。从学术史视角观察,以上论辩基本上是在学术层面展开的,但论辩的性质却颇为复杂,值得进一步深入思考。
Since the unearthed bamboo books such as“The Bamboo Annals”and“The Biography of the Mu Emperor”,they have long been highly valued by academia.So far,however,there are still many unsolvable mysteries on several key issues such as the date of the excavation of the Jizhong(汲冢)books,the owner of the Jizhong(汲冢)tomb and its location.In the absence of materials,complete information and sufficient evidence,it is too absolute and arbitrary to determine the date of Jizhong(汲冢)as a late Warring States tomb,and to discuss the date of Jizhong(汲冢)books,including“The Biography of the Mu Emperor”and“The Bamboo Annals”.Since the 1990s,a large number of lost bamboo slips of unknown origin and unclear background have been sorted out and published one after another.The sorting and publication of various lost bamboo slips provided a wealth of new materials for the study of Chinese classical studies.At the same time,it caused questions about the authenticity of the lost bamboo slips,such as Shanghai Museum bamboo slips,Zhejiang University bamboo slips,Tsinghua bamboo slips,and Peking University bamboo slips,as well as several replies and counterattacks.From the perspective of academic history,the above debates are basically carried out on the academic level,but the nature of the debates is quite complicated and it is worth further thinking.
作者
周书灿
Zhou Shucan(School of Society,Soochow University,Suzhou 215123)
出处
《浙江社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2021年第7期136-143,F0003,共9页
Zhejiang Social Sciences
基金
贵州省2020年度哲学社会科学规划国学单列一般课题“现代学术思潮与多学科视野下的《穆天子传》研究”(20GZGX16)成果。
关键词
汲冢
墓主
位置
《穆天子传》
流失简
Jizhong(汲冢)
Tomb owner
location
“The Biography of the Mu Emperor”
the lost bamboo slips
