应国兽簋铭文及相关问题

中国国家博物馆近年来入藏的兽簋为应国器物,可能是从平顶山应国墓地流出。兽簋铭文中的"应侯"是指应侯见工,"兽"是应国公族成员,后者曾服事应侯爯和应侯见工两代应侯。在应侯见工统治时期,兽负责管理应国的走马和驭人,其职司与《周礼》校人相似。兽簋铭文中的走马、驭人属于诸侯国职官性质,填补了应国官制乃至西周诸侯国官制史料的不足。     

关于应侯钟“见工”一词的解释

《文物》1975年第10期发表了蓝田县红星公社出土的应侯钟,钟铭记载周王从成周回到周,在康宫里对应侯的一次普通的锡命。由铭文文字未完来看,这是一套编钟的一只。关于应国的历史文献缺乏记载,出土器物也为数不多,应侯钟的发现,为研究应国的历史增添了新的史料。在应侯钟铭文中,"见工"一词曾两次出现,且都与应侯相连。在该期《文物》中,韌松同志把"见工"解作为"见事",     

由(彔见)簋铭文窥探西周册命礼仪的变化

(彔见)簋是西周中期的器物,其铭文内容是周王对(彔见)的册命.(彔见)是穆王晚期至懿王初期周王身边卿一级的执政大臣.由(彔见)簋等册命铭文可了解当时册命礼仪的变化.     

西周厉王时期战争铭文的对比研究

关于西周厉王时期的战争,传世文献仅有只言片语涉及。而有不少厉王时的青铜器铭文记载了当时的战争情况。本文通过人物系联,汇集了厉王时期的12篇战争铭文,包括:翏生盨、噩侯驭方鼎、多友鼎、禹鼎、敔簋、宗周钟、伯父簋、虢仲盨盖、应侯视工簋、应侯视工鼎、晋侯铜人、晋侯苏钟铭文,进行了铭文之间的对比,总结了格式和内容上的相似之处;又对比了铭文与传世文献,认为在用词和礼制上两者可相互参证。最后综合探讨了厉王时期的战争和社会形势,认为从铭文时代上看,当时既有前代遗留的东南淮夷之患,又在西北开始了与猃狁的战争;从铭文所载地名上看,宗周、成周等京畿重地皆受到威胁;至于战争之祸所造成的社会形势,于《诗·大雅·桑柔》之"靡国不泯""民靡有黎""哀恫中国"可见一斑。     

訇簋及弭叔簋小记

文物1960年第2期载有訇簋及弭叔簋铭文(器铭照片及两种释文),中之訇簋铭文更关系到西周社会性质.因将所见数事录出,以供同志们参考.訇簋铭文有云:"今余令汝啇官,司邑人、先虎臣、后庸、西门夷、春夷、京夷、……"以全文证之,"先虎臣"是一种军旅,指作为先锋的虎臣.师?簋:"今余肇令汝率齐币、?、僰?、左右虎臣,征淮夷".虎臣既用来征伐,可见本是军旅之一种.以师?簋的左右虎臣和本铭的先虎臣相较,知左右是指左右两翼,先则无疑为先锋.又     

史密簋“”字说

史密簋“”字说张世超安康出土的史密簋铭文曰：＂率族人、白、周伐长必。＂其中的＂白＂诸家读为＂菜伯＂,已无异议字,张懋等据郭沫若师震簋铭文的考释释为,①师震簋铭曰：＂今余肇令女齐币（师）、左右虎臣正（征）淮尸（夷）＂,将史密、师震二器铭文读,是同一字...     

新见几件有铭铜簋

河南省开封市博物馆收藏有几件春秋期的有铭铜簋,其中束仲父簋3件、录簋盖件,原系1966年河南省平顶山市郏县薛店镇朴寨村(原薛店区太仆乡)陈德周捐赠给河省文物工作队,20世纪60年代移交今开封博物馆。现将这几件铜簋介绍如下,并对器进行考释。束仲父簋3件(馆藏号:09317、093109320)。形制、纹饰及铭文均相同,其中2件     

关于故宫博物院所藏邐簋的定名及相关问题

故宫博物院所藏旧称为"邐簋"或"簋"的殷代青铜簋,其铭虽简,但言深意远,语境复杂。作者细致释读剖析铭文,认为作器者应为"京",此器似应称作"京簋"。此外,本文进一步讨论了铭文中牵涉的相关问题。     

应侯视工簋盖铭“(傅)氒众(魯)”考

应侯视工簋盖铭"?氒众"和师?簋铭"博氒众叚"比较费解,学界颇多争议。据新出曾侯与编钟铭文"恃有众庶",本文认为"?"与"博"均当读作"怙",训为"恃"。"■"与"叚"当读作"庶"。"?氒众■"、"博氒众叚"、"恃有众庶"与典籍习见之"负其众庶"可相互参证。     

师酉簋铭文中的“瓜”字

分析、比较<殷周金文集成>及其他一些古文字材料中的"身"、"瓜"字形,认为师酉簋铭文作" "等形者,实为"瓜"字,在铭文中当读作"狐".铭文中的"弁瓜夷"可能是指有戴狐皮帽习俗之夷部族.     

三皇五帝时代的再思考

一."层累地造成的中国古史"的辩证上世纪20年代古史辨派兴起,对中国的古史进行了全面的整理,对古史尤其是上古史给予否定,其最为重要的论点认为上古史是"层累地造成的",是"伪造的古史系统","三皇五帝"时代也被完全推翻。近年来随着考古学和历史学的发展,     

Asylum seekers,Ireland, and the return of the repressed

Abstract

In 2014 residents in Direct Provision Centres for asylum seekers staged a series of protests. The protests, which coincided with the appointment of a new Minister for Justice who announced the Irish government’s plans to reform the asylum system, voiced three clear demands. Firstly, the protestors demanded that all asylum centres be closed; secondly, they demanded that all residents be given the right to remain and work in Ireland; and thirdly, they demanded an end to all deportations. The government’s response to these protests was to appoint a working group in October 2014, made up of representatives of migrant-support NGOs (but without any significant representation of asylum seekers themselves) while also announcing that it intends to reform rather than abolish the system.

Against this background, this paper makes three interlinked theoretical propositions. Firstly, I propose that just as the Irish state and society managed to ignore workhouses, mental health asylums, “mother and baby homes”, Magdalene laundries and industrial schools, they also “manage not to know” of the plight of asylum seekers, precisely because the Direct Provision system isolates asylum applicants, makes them dependent on bed and board and a small “residual income maintenance payment to cover personal requisites”, and makes it difficult for them to organise on a national level. “Managing not to know”, or disavowing, entails the erasure of the Direct Provision system from Ireland’s collective consciousness at a time when increasing emigration is returning to haunt Irish society after years of refusing to confront the pain of emigration. I argue that asylum seekers represent the return of Ireland’s repressed that confronts Irish people, themselves e/migrants par excellence. Secondly, I propose that by taking action and representing themselves, the residents of Direct Provision Centres can no longer be theorised as Agamben’s “bare life”, at the mercy of sovereign power, to whom everything is done and who are therefore not considered active agents in their own right. The third proposition responds to the theme of this special issue, that multiculturalism is “in crisis”, arguing in the conclusion that this “crisis” hardly applies to Ireland, where the brief flirtations with “interculturalism” by state, society but also Irish studies disavow race and racism in favour of a returning obsession with emigration, which enables the continued disavowal of the experiences of asylum seekers in Direct Provision.