摘要
从奴隶制国家出现后,"国之大事,在祀与戎"。兵器是统治阶级对外用以掠夺、侵略,对内用以镇压和保护阶级利益的主要工具,所以兵器的地位仅次于礼器(彝器);出土兵器也相当多,在青铜器中兵器是一个重要的组成部分。可是青铜兵器的研究却远远落后于礼器,有些青铜器的专著甚至不包括兵器;作为最基本的研究——分国与断代工作,也还相当缺乏基础。
Basing himself mainly on the inscriptions found on the bronze weapons of the States ofthe Han, Chao and Wei of the Warring States Period, the author discusses the problem oftheir dating and such related problems as the system of government supervison in the manu-facture of bronze weapons, status of officials and craftsmen, and the locations of armoriesin these states. A comprehensive study of the inscriptions found on ninety bronze weapons shows that the bronze weapons of these states were manufactured either at the capital or in provincial citiesand towns. Such inscriptions often bear the names of supervising officials, heads ofarmories and craftsmen. The supervisor was the highest ranking official of the localitywhose function was to supervise and inspect the production of bronze weapons and finally tocheck and accept the finished products on behalf of the government. The heads of armorieswere oftern middle-ranking or minor official of the local government. The craftsmen,who were either criminals serving prison sentences or soldiers, were the only ones whoperformed the actual labour in the manufacture. The bronze weapons of these states were mostly manufactured in government armoriescalled k'u 库. Each state might have as many as four armories in the capital, plusone or two located in a provincial city or town. Judging by the names of kung shih工师(Master Craftsman), yeh ying 冶尹(foreman) and yeh 冶 (craftsman), such armories wereprobably of a rather impressive size and very well-equipped, employing a considerable num-ber of technical personnel. And in addition to the manufacture of bronze weapons, they mightalso produce bronze vessels and other objects. The names of cities which appear on the wea-pons are mostly identical with those in which the mints and bronze foundries of these stateswere known to have been located, indicating that they were probably main bronze-castingcentres of these states. The inscriptions found on the bronze weapons reveal some common features. Thehighest ranking official of a locality often served as the supervisor in the manufactureof bronze weapons. In most cases, the armory is clearly indicated. The kung shihand yeh ying were merely in charge of the manufacturing process while the actual labourwas performed by the yeh alone. The inscriptions are marked by a style which is very characteristic of the states of Han,Chao and Wei and distinet from those found on the bronze weapons of the states of Ch'in,Yen, Ch'i and Ch'u. There is also a slight variation in the titles of the officials given assupervisors for the manufacture of bronze weapons at the capital. The appearence of inscriptions on bronze weapons probably began at a rather early date.But it was not until after the middle of the Warring States Period that they came into wideruse and became highly elaborate. Changes in the form and style of the inscriptions havealso provided some helpful clues to dating. Of the three forms found in the inscriptions of these bronze weapons, the first and sim-plest one merely gives the names of the armory and craftsman. The second adds the name ofthe supervisor while the third and most elaborate one lists the names of two supervisors beforethe names of the armory and craftsman. The appearence of each of these three forms ofinscriptions coincides with the three stages proposed by the author for the periodization ofthese bronze weapons.
出处
《考古学报》
1974年第1期13-44,共32页
Acta Archaeologica Sinica
