<論説>弁偽の偽 --近年の金文・簡讀の偽作説をめぐって-- (特集 : 嘘)

Abstract

出土文献に対する弁偽は近代以来盛んに行われてきたが、近年出土文献に対する弁偽の様相が従来とは変化している。偽作説が濫発され、弁偽の信頼性に疑義、疑問が生じるようになっており、非発掘資料自体にではなく、それらに対する偽作説の方に疑わしい点や安易さが見られるようになっている。また多くの研究者が妥当と見なしている弁偽に対して、無理な批判も横行している。近年偽作説が相次いで提示されている金文と簡牘について同じ土俵に上げて検討することで、共通の問題が見出せる。また、非発掘資料にどのように相対していくかというスタンスの表明も近年日本で複数発表されている。複数の研究者が問題にする非発掘資料のコンテクストの欠如の問題については、あくまで考古学の立場からの問題意識である。文献史学の立場に立脚した場合、非発掘資料の釈読にはそのようなコンテクストが必ずしも重要な問題とはならない。

Although the authenticity judgements (bengi 弁偽) of Chinese unearthed documents has often been conducted in modern times, there has been a change in the authentication of unearthed documents in recent years. Rampant theories of forgery have caused doubts and questions about the reliability of authentication, and now questionable points and the ease of creating such theories about forgery are more prominent than those about the non-excavated materials themselves. In addition, unreasonable criticism of what many researchers consider to be valid authentication has also grown rampant. By considering together both bronze inscriptions and bamboo slips that are alleged to have been forgeries in recent years, common problems can be revealed. This paper focuses on the current state of authentication of bronze inscriptions and the bamboo slips. First, I introduce the state of authenticity judgements of bronze inscriptions conducted prior to the 21st century, focusing on the works of Rong Geng 容庚, Banard and others. I then address newly discovered bronze inscriptions whose authenticity has been questioned, including Bin Gong xu 豳公盨 of the Western Zhou 周 period that recount the oldest legend of Yu 禹's flood control, and Mou Gong gui [口爻見]公簋 of the Western Zhou period referring to the foundation of the Jin 晋 state, and the Jin Gong pan 晋公盤, which has the same inscription as the inherited bronze vessel that is decorated with waterfowl, fish, frog, and turtle figures. In recent years, the authentication of bronze inscriptions has been biased toward the views of particular researchers and seems to have been made with less rigor, and the theories of forgery have become less reliable than newly discovered non-excavated bronze inscriptions themselves. Finally, I introduce some recent methodologies of authentication, such as Sakikawa Takashi 崎川隆's method of overlapping inscriptions. Sakikawa also evaluates fake artifacts to be “archaeological artifacts” in order to elucidate the contemporary social, economic, and cultural background of the bronzes. As regards the bamboo slips and tablets, the purchase of the Warring States 戦国 period bamboo slips by the Shanghai Museum 上海博物館 in1994 triggered attention on non-excavated bamboo slips as primary source materials. The number of cases of bamboo slip forgery has been increasing rapidly since the 1990s. The authentication of bamboo slips has often been made with reference to the judgements about bronze inscriptions. The indicators include radiocarbon measurement, information on the chemica l treatment of the bamboo slips, and the usage of the characters used on the slips. As examples of authentication, I discuss the Tsinghua University 清華大学 collection of the Warring States Bamboo Slips (Qinghua jian 清華簡) and the Zuo zhuan 左伝 in the Zhejiang University 浙江大学 collection of the Warring States Bamboo Slips (Zheda jian 浙大簡) . While many researchers consider the Qinghua jian to be authentic, a few researchers claim that it is a forgery. Conversely, many researchers consider the Zheda jian Zuo zhuan to be a forgery, while a few researchers consider it to be authentic. In both cases, judgements are skewed, relying on a particular researcher, as in the case of bronze inscriptions. Arguments about the judgement about Zheda jian Zuozhuan in particular have become a fruitless exercises. Finally, I take up the problem of what stance to take in regard to nonexcavated materials. Several statements on such a stance have been published in Japan in recent years. Some researchers have problematized the lack of archaeological context for non-excavated materials. In particular, Tomiya Itaru 冨谷至's declaration that bamboo slips whose source is unidentified have no appeal as source materials and that he would not use them for research, has caused controversy. However, this awareness derives from the point of view of archaeology. From the position of the philology, such context is not necessarily an important issue in the exegesis of non-excavated materials.