四论武乙、文丁卜辞——无名组与历组卜辞早晚关系
|
摘要
<正>目次一问题的提出二无名组与历组卜辞的类型三无名组与历组卜辞的称谓与时代四无名组与历组卜辞的早晚关系五论"小乙—三祖—父丁"中的"三祖"六无名组与历组卜辞所出地层七地层学与类型学的关系八结论一问题的提出历组卜辞是武乙、文丁卜辞的主体。自二十世纪七十年代以来,关于历组卜辞时代的争论进行了近四十年。争论中,我们于1980、1984年发表了《论武乙、文丁卜辞》与《再论武乙、文丁卜辞》两篇文章,论述该类卜辞是属于武乙、文丁时代。尤其是2011年发表的《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》一文,指出在历组卜辞中明确存在"小乙—三祖—父丁"这一祭祀顺序,这是小乙与父丁
In the oracle bones unearthed at the Yinxu Site,the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"and"Li Group"are identified by the names of the diviners.According to the traditional periodization,the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"were created in the reigns of Kings Kang Ding and Wu Yi,which were earlier;the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"were created in the reigns of Kings Wu Yi and Wen Ding,which were later.Since 1977,Li Xueqin puts forward and gradually perfects his "two-system hypothesis",which suggests that the"Fu Ding(Father Ding)"mentioned in the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"referred to King Wu Ding,and the"Fu Yi(Father Yi)"referred to King Xiao Yi;this hypothesis advances the creation date of the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"to the later period of the reign of King Wu Ding and the reign of King Zu Geng,which triggered an intense dispute in the oracle bone studies field lasting for over 40 years.Soon after the presentation of the"two-system hypothesis",Lin Yun joined this dispute and also put forward another"twosystem hypothesis"which was almost the same as that of Li Xueqin:both suggest that the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"should be dated to the later period of the reign of King Wu Ding and the reign of King Zu Geng,and the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"were created earlier than that of"No-name Group";the inscriptions in "Li Group"mentioning "Father Yi"were created in the later period of the reign of King Wu Ding,and that in the same group mentioning"Father Ding"were created in the reign of King Zu Geng.Their views were exactly against the traditional periodization conclusion.Which one is earlier and which one is later,the"Li Group"or the"No-name Group"?This became the focus of the dispute.By script styles,this paper classifies the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"into five types;according to the appellations in these inscriptions,this paper proves that the inscriptions of"No-name Group"were created in the reigns of Kings Zu Jia,Kang Ding and Wu Yi,plus some in the reign of King Wen Ding.By script styles,the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"could be classified into the"Father Ding Subgroup"and"Father Yi Subgroup",the former of which were created in the reign of King Wu Yi and the latter were created in the reign of King Wen Ding.During the reigns of Kings Wu Yi and Wen Ding,the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"and"Li Group"did coexist;however,seen as a whole,the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"were created earlier than that of"Li Group",which has been proven by the textual evidence of the oracle inscriptions and stratigraphical evidence,and cannot be disputable.Even more important,the appearance of the sequence of"Xiao Yi—‘Three Ancestors' — Father Ding"as the recipients on the sacrificial ceremonies in the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"provides unquestionable evidence:the"Father Ding"in this sequence must have been King Kang Ding,and therefore the "two-system hypothesis"is groundless.
In the oracle bones unearthed at the Yinxu Site,the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"and"Li Group"are identified by the names of the diviners.According to the traditional periodization,the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"were created in the reigns of Kings Kang Ding and Wu Yi,which were earlier;the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"were created in the reigns of Kings Wu Yi and Wen Ding,which were later.Since 1977,Li Xueqin puts forward and gradually perfects his "two-system hypothesis",which suggests that the"Fu Ding(Father Ding)"mentioned in the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"referred to King Wu Ding,and the"Fu Yi(Father Yi)"referred to King Xiao Yi;this hypothesis advances the creation date of the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"to the later period of the reign of King Wu Ding and the reign of King Zu Geng,which triggered an intense dispute in the oracle bone studies field lasting for over 40 years.Soon after the presentation of the"two-system hypothesis",Lin Yun joined this dispute and also put forward another"twosystem hypothesis"which was almost the same as that of Li Xueqin:both suggest that the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"should be dated to the later period of the reign of King Wu Ding and the reign of King Zu Geng,and the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"were created earlier than that of"No-name Group";the inscriptions in "Li Group"mentioning "Father Yi"were created in the later period of the reign of King Wu Ding,and that in the same group mentioning"Father Ding"were created in the reign of King Zu Geng.Their views were exactly against the traditional periodization conclusion.Which one is earlier and which one is later,the"Li Group"or the"No-name Group"?This became the focus of the dispute.By script styles,this paper classifies the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"into five types;according to the appellations in these inscriptions,this paper proves that the inscriptions of"No-name Group"were created in the reigns of Kings Zu Jia,Kang Ding and Wu Yi,plus some in the reign of King Wen Ding.By script styles,the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"could be classified into the"Father Ding Subgroup"and"Father Yi Subgroup",the former of which were created in the reign of King Wu Yi and the latter were created in the reign of King Wen Ding.During the reigns of Kings Wu Yi and Wen Ding,the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"and"Li Group"did coexist;however,seen as a whole,the oracle inscriptions of"No-name Group"were created earlier than that of"Li Group",which has been proven by the textual evidence of the oracle inscriptions and stratigraphical evidence,and cannot be disputable.Even more important,the appearance of the sequence of"Xiao Yi—‘Three Ancestors' — Father Ding"as the recipients on the sacrificial ceremonies in the oracle inscriptions of"Li Group"provides unquestionable evidence:the"Father Ding"in this sequence must have been King Kang Ding,and therefore the "two-system hypothesis"is groundless.
引文
(1)董作宾:《甲骨文断代研究例》,《庆祝蔡元培先生六十五岁论文集》上册,359页,历史语言研究所,1933年。
(2)胡厚宣:《战后宁沪新获甲骨集》,来熏阁书店,1951年。
(3)中国社会科学院考古研究所:《小屯南地甲骨·释文》,中华书局,1983年。
(4)林■:《小屯南地发掘与殷墟甲骨断代》,《古文字研究》第九辑,141、142页。中华书局,1984年。
(5)李学勤、彭裕商:《殷墟甲骨分期研究》,305、306页,上海古籍出版社,1996年。
(6)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(7)林■:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究·序》,见周忠兵:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究》,上海人民出版社,2015年。
(8)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(9)林■、刘金山:《〈甲骨文断代研究例〉在断代中仍可发挥作用》,《古文字与古代史》第四辑,历史语言研究所,2015年。
(10)林■:《小屯南地发掘与殷墟甲骨断代》,《古文字研究》第九辑,142页,中华书局,1984年。
(11)林■:《小屯南地发掘与殷墟甲骨断代》,《古文字研究》第九辑,136页,中华书局,1984年。
(12)此八十一片是此次写作论文中收集到的卜辞片数,不是精确的统计,只作为参考。以下同,不另注。
(13)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(14)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(15)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(16)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(17)曹定云:《殷代积年与各王在位年数》,《殷都学刊》1999年第4期。
(18)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(19)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(20)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(21)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(22)林■:《小屯南地发掘与殷墟甲骨断代》,《古文字研究》第九辑,142页,中华书局,1984年。
(23)林■:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究·序》,见周忠兵:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究》,上海人民出版社,2015年。
(24)林■:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究·序》,见周忠兵:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究》,上海人民出版社,2015年。
(25)林■:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究·序》,见周忠兵:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究》,上海人民出版社,2015年。
(26)俞伟超:《关于“考古类型学”的问题——为北京大学七七至七九级青海、湖北考古实习同学而讲》,《考古类型学的理论与实践》,11页,文物出版社,1989年。
(27)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(28)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(29)何组卜辞中可能有部分卜辞延至武乙时期,如《甲》2938有父辛、祖己称谓,便是明证。
(2)胡厚宣:《战后宁沪新获甲骨集》,来熏阁书店,1951年。
(3)中国社会科学院考古研究所:《小屯南地甲骨·释文》,中华书局,1983年。
(4)林■:《小屯南地发掘与殷墟甲骨断代》,《古文字研究》第九辑,141、142页。中华书局,1984年。
(5)李学勤、彭裕商:《殷墟甲骨分期研究》,305、306页,上海古籍出版社,1996年。
(6)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(7)林■:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究·序》,见周忠兵:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究》,上海人民出版社,2015年。
(8)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(9)林■、刘金山:《〈甲骨文断代研究例〉在断代中仍可发挥作用》,《古文字与古代史》第四辑,历史语言研究所,2015年。
(10)林■:《小屯南地发掘与殷墟甲骨断代》,《古文字研究》第九辑,142页,中华书局,1984年。
(11)林■:《小屯南地发掘与殷墟甲骨断代》,《古文字研究》第九辑,136页,中华书局,1984年。
(12)此八十一片是此次写作论文中收集到的卜辞片数,不是精确的统计,只作为参考。以下同,不另注。
(13)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(14)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(15)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(16)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(17)曹定云:《殷代积年与各王在位年数》,《殷都学刊》1999年第4期。
(18)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(19)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(20)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(21)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(22)林■:《小屯南地发掘与殷墟甲骨断代》,《古文字研究》第九辑,142页,中华书局,1984年。
(23)林■:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究·序》,见周忠兵:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究》,上海人民出版社,2015年。
(24)林■:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究·序》,见周忠兵:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究》,上海人民出版社,2015年。
(25)林■:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究·序》,见周忠兵:《卡内基博物馆所藏甲骨研究》,上海人民出版社,2015年。
(26)俞伟超:《关于“考古类型学”的问题——为北京大学七七至七九级青海、湖北考古实习同学而讲》,《考古类型学的理论与实践》,11页,文物出版社,1989年。
(27)刘一曼、曹定云:《三论武乙、文丁卜辞》,《考古学报》2011年第4期。
(28)林■:《评〈三论武乙、文丁卜辞〉》,《出土材料与新视野》,历史语言研究所,2013年。
(29)何组卜辞中可能有部分卜辞延至武乙时期,如《甲》2938有父辛、祖己称谓,便是明证。