請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88910
標題: | 殷商晚期的絕對年代──以周祭祀譜為中心的討論 Late Shang Chronology: a Study Based on Shang Ritual Cycles (zhouji) |
作者: | 王紫讓 Tzu-Jang Wang |
指導教授: | 黃銘崇 Ming-Chorng Hwang |
關鍵字: | 卜辭,帝乙,帝辛,周祭,甲骨文,年代學,竹書紀年, oracle bones,Shang,zhouji,chronology,Bamboo Annals, |
出版年 : | 2023 |
學位: | 碩士 |
摘要: | 本文梳理了對殷商曆法以及周祭祀譜的研究,主張殷曆為陰陽合曆;殷曆之建正以建子、丑、寅最有可能;周祭祀譜是整齊的360日,可能在任何時候閏一旬;陰陽合曆與周祭祀譜是互相繫聯的,存在著祀季的概念,某一王世的月份會對應到特定的周祭之旬;帝辛祀譜可以成立。
本文最重要的論證是將帝辛十祀九月甲午𩛥上甲定於2 Oct. 1066 B.C.。首先,本文駁斥了董作賓「帝辛十祀閏九月」的理論,論證從九祀二月至十一祀二月皆不會有閏月存在。隨後,倪德衛、夏含夷以閏九月理論推算出的帝辛十祀為1077 B.C. 的說法就具有問題。最有可能作為帝辛十祀的年份是1066 B.C.。 承上,本文提出了「觀象曆」的理論,在帝辛十祀征夷方這場商王親征、規模龐大的軍事行動之中,使用以朏為月首的觀象曆可以解決曆法計算繁縟、商王奔波勞碌的問題,這也導致帝辛十祀十月有31日,隨後的月份都以朏為月首,並恰巧錯過了冬至日而失閏,使後來的小子䍙簋出現十四月。帝辛十一祀正月由於戰況激烈的緣故,曆法再失一日,以朏後一日為月首,不過很快更改回來。然而,帝辛十一祀二月望日發生了《逸周書‧小開》記載的文王三十五祀月全食,這導致二月曆法又失一日。由帝辛十祀九月甲午𩛥上甲為3 Aug. 1066 B.C.,可知殷曆建寅,本文根據以上結果,建立了帝辛元祀至帝辛二十五祀的周祭合曆祀譜。 本文認為不置閏月的帝乙祀譜,由於不符合殷曆的陰陽合曆邏輯,因此不能成立。本文將三祀資料與七祀資料個別分析,不過由於資料較少,且缺乏繫聯的事件,因此沒有合曆,一些零碎的周祭資料可能超出商末三王文丁、帝乙、帝辛的時期。至於八祀三月四癸日與九祀征盂方事件,可以排在1105-1103 B.C.為文丁之世,其中殷曆建寅,可以構成一個自圓其說的歷史敘事。 本文認為《今本竹書紀年》不是偽作,然而《今本竹書紀年‧殷紀》之中,帝乙、帝辛紀年是有問題的。帝乙紀年的後半有可能全部失去;帝辛紀年的前十年反常地記載許多殷都的史事,且帝辛29年之後資料大量增加,並且有被壓縮的可能。相較之下,文丁紀年由於有季歷的征伐紀錄,以及特殊的「文丁殺季歷」資料,可能保存了更原始的文本,有問題的機率較小。本文根據文丁八祀為1105 B.C.、帝辛十祀為1066 B.C.、文王三十五祀為1065 B.C.,編排了一種商末周初的紀年,根據排除法,可知帝乙在位24年。 This essay investigates late Shang chronology based on the Shang calendar and Shang royal ritual cycles (zhouji). Generally, the essay proposes that the Shang calendar belongs to the lunisolar calendar and the royal ritual is based on a 360-day cycle, approximately to a solar year. Therefore, the lunisolar Shang calendar and the royal ritual cycle are connected and coherent. The most important argument of the essay is that the date of the zai sacrifice of Shangjia, the 9th month, the 10th year of Dixin be the 2nd Oct 1066 B.C. At first, the essay rebuts “the intercalary ninth month” hypothesis by Dong Zuobin, and argues that there was no intercalary month between the second month of the ninth year of Dixin and the second month of the eleventh year of Dixin. Therefore, the 1077 B.C. hypothesis is problematic, as the hypothesis is based on the theory of Dong Zuobin. By checking the astronomic table, the essay figures out that the most probable year of the tenth year of Dixin is 1066 B.C. The essay also argues that the Diyi ritual cycle without any intercalary month is not suitable to the lunisolar Shang calendar, and thus is not reliable. The essay analyses the 3rd year and the 7th year materials of “Diyi” separately. As for the 8th year and the 9th year of “Diyi”, the essay suggests that the materials belong to 1105-1103 B.C., which lies in the reign of Wending. The essay proposes that the Current Text of Bamboo Annals has correct historical information. However, the Annals of Diyi and Dixin part are chronologically problematic. Instead, the essay proposes that the 8th year of Wending be 1105 B.C, the tenth year of Dixin be 1066 B.C., the 35th year of King Wen of Zhou be 1065 B.C., and therefore reconstructs a new chronological scheme for the late Shang period. |
URI: | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/88910 |
DOI: | 10.6342/NTU202303199 |
全文授權: | 同意授權(全球公開) |
顯示於系所單位: | 歷史學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-111-2.pdf | 9.52 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。