鹤顶红、西洋布及其他——《新增格古要论》与明初中外交流

《新增格古要论》一书的原本《格古要论》为明初松江府华亭县（今属上海市）人曹昭所作,序言时间为“洪武二十一年戊辰春三月望”,即公元1388年。此书到景泰时,为吉安府吉水县（今江西吉水县）人王佐校订、增补,成为《新增格古要论》。新增凡例说：“是编自景泰七年丙子夏四月中旬得李、孙二公旧本,至其七月考校、增完,又至天顺三年己卯夏四月上旬欲命工锓梓点校始完。”     

《格古要论》版本辨析

《格古要论》是明初一部重要的文物鉴赏专著。由于该书经后人多次增补修订,故存世有多种不同版本。本文着重对各种版本的来龙去脉进行介绍,使读者对其有比较全面的了解。     

主体、媒介、内容：民国时期《史学要论》传播的三重维度

民国时期,李大钊的《史学要论》由商务印书馆纳入“百科小丛书”系列出版。该书出版后被众多学者介绍、引用,保证了该书传播主体的可信度。同时,《史学要论》也通过印刷书籍、杂志、报纸和图书馆等近代中国最先进的知识传播媒介加以传播,体现出《史学要论》传播媒介的先进性、多样性。也因其内容与近代中国史学界构建新史学的诉求相契合,《史学要论》的观点、理论、思想逐渐得到了史学界的认可,并以被介绍和引用的方式得到进一步传播。     

司马谈与《史记》

司马谈为西汉前期著名的史学家和思想家。他之于《史记》有发凡起例之功,对《史记》的五种体例都有成文论作。其中《论六家要指》一文,是中国学术史和史学史上的重要文献,它不仅反映了司马谈的学术思想,而且也反映了司马谈的史学思想和政治思想。《史记》能成为千古不朽之作,是与司马谈的努力分不开的。     

磁州窑白地黑绘枕的文人情怀

磁州窑是中国古代北方著名的民间瓷窑,位于今河北省邯郸市磁县和峰峰矿区,因其宋代隶属磁州,故以此名谓之。早在明洪武年间曹昭所撰的《格古要论》下卷中就有关于磁州窑的记载,其中古窑器沦之古磁器条载：“古磁器,出河南彰德府磁州,好者与定器相似,但无泪痕,亦有划化、绣花。素者价低于定器,新者不足论。”后人关于磁州窑的记载逐渐增多,都在尝试对磁州窑的装饰风格作更进一步的具体描述,清人许之衡在《饮流斋说瓷》中记：     

《宋朝要录》考略

本文旨在探究《续资治通鉴长编》后注中令人致疑的《宋朝要录》一书。此书无作者,无卷数,官、私目录少有著录,最早仅见于明《永乐大典》宋字韵《续资治通鉴长编》后注中,随后不久残佚。本文考证得知：（一）该书成于明修《永乐大典》之前,所载内容多来源于宋代《实录》,故疑为《实录》脱本;（二）明修《永乐大典》时用以增补《续资治通鉴长编》。     

论王符《潜夫论》的成书时间

由于史书记载的过于简略,王符《潜夫论》一书的成书时间问题至今仍然尚无定论。笔者认为,通过对《叙录》、《本政》、《交际》三篇文章写作时间的确定,可以推断《潜夫论》全书的最终成书时间应在汉桓帝时期。     

雨果·格老秀斯的辩词——《海洋自由论》的发表起因

雨果·格老秀斯(1583—1645)是荷兰人文主义法学家,因其开创了"以国际法来制约国家间的战争"而被尊称为"国际法之父"。他在1609年发表的《海洋自由论》是西方法理学与政治哲学史上第一份以"海洋"为主题的严肃思考。本文从格老秀斯生活的时代、荷兰与葡萄牙海战纠纷来分析《海洋自由论》产生的起因,并对其内容进行概述。     

李提摩太与《泰西新史揽要》

1891-1916年,英国传教士李提摩太担任广学会总干事。期间他翻译的《泰西新史揽要》一书深刻影响了近代中国社会。     

唐五代格、敕編纂之演變再探

本文分階段探討唐五代之際格、敕編纂的發展特色,認爲唐前期所修是綜合性立法的格,其條文內容與禮密不可分,直至玄宗朝《開元禮》的制作,使修纂較爲便捷的格後敕成爲新的法律形式。貞元、元和之際對《開元禮》和開元制度的繼承,完全轉化爲對開元格後敕的編纂和認定。但歷朝不斷增加的內容以及綜合性立法的性質,致使格後敕的編纂趨向繁冗,所以又制定了以刑法爲主體的《開成格》和《大中刑律統類》,並爲五代所承用,最後因《大周刑統》頒佈而歸於失效。作爲唐代主要法律形式之一的格在北宋前期銷聲匿迹,直至元豐變法纔又以"賞格"的面目出現。與此同時,格後敕在五代易名爲編敕,在北宋前期逐漸析出制度性條文,最終在元豐時成爲單一性刑法規範。     

Nouvelles antiquités sudarabiques de la collection Moussaieff

This article contains the publication of eight South Arabian antiquities from the collection of Mr Sh. Moussaieff.     

The Antiquities Market: News and Commentary on the Illicit Traffic in Antiquities

Abstract

Wind God Foils Smuggler's Breeze through Customs

Laura Scanlan's article describing the seizure at U.S. Customs and the eventual return to Mexico of several important Precolumbian artifacts is reprinted here with permission from Customs Today, 17:2 (1982) 2–3. Both the story itself and the act of reprinting emphasize the growing cooperation between archaeologists and the U.S. Customs Bureau in cases involving antiquities. Karen Bruhns and Connie Fenchel (see below) have been an effective team in pursuing cases involving antiquities smuggling in the San Francisco area. In the Bernstein case (see below “A Lawyer Looks at U.S. Antiquities Laws”) archaeologists also provided professional evaluations and consultation to customs officials. Both the Mexican case described here by Scanlan and the Bernstein case were initiated through improper customs declarations, which were recognized by alert customs inspectors familiar with the value of antiquities and the significance of the illicit trade.

These cases suggest a way for many archaeologists who have said they would like to help curb the illicit trade but did not know how to do so. There are customs offices in most large U.S. cities. They are the places where antiquities enter this country. Special Agent Fenchel pointed out, during her presentation at the Legislative Session of the AIA in San Francisco, that most antiquities cases in this country have begun with an improper customs declaration. If this is so, the effectiveness of existing law governing the antiquities trade depends largely on the ability of customs inspectors to recognize antiquities and to evaluate their accompanying declarations. Even when/if the UNESCO Convention is implemented, its enforcement will be largely in the hands of customs inspectors. Thus, professional archaeologists could make a substantive contribution toward curbing import of illicit antiquities by introducing themselves at their local customs office and offering to make available their professional advice on cases involving antiquities. Local archaeological societies might consider offering seminars for their local customs inspectors on ancient art and archaeology and the pertinent laws and market values, to help increase the ability of customs inspectors to recognize antiquities in the course of their work. Just knowing that there is expert help available locally to identify and evaluate antiquities, or to find another expert who might be able to do so, could make local customs inspectors more sensitive to the issues involved and more likely to catch violations.     

倦勤斋光环境及相关文物保护研究——倦勤斋保护工作阶段报告之二

本研究遵循的总原则是室内视觉环境的真实性原则、光辐射的文物安全优先原则、展示照明装置的可逆性原则和可识别性原则。以室内光环境实测为研究基础,论证了适用于倦勤斋的照明标准,同时估算室内文物的年曝光量,推算展示时间,确定参观模式。确定经过隔紫、隔红、降强度的天然光为室内照明的主要光源。对于透光装置和材料进行改造,对于历史灯具进行复位并提出电气改造建议。初步提出"历史光环境是倦勤斋值得保护的重要元素之一"。该研究提出的对于内檐文物兼顾整体保护和鉴赏的视觉环境,为倦勤斋的开放提供了部分理论和技术支持,对于故宫的同类保护项目具有一定借鉴意义。     

传统制瓷工艺对海洋出水瓷器保护修复的研究意义——以宋代景德镇窑青白瓷为例

可移动文物中瓷质文物通常被认为理化性质比较稳定,但海洋出水的瓷质文物因为埋藏环境复杂,常有盐析、附着物、侵蚀等病害。文保工作者在对其保护修复过程中,容易将部分病害与瓷器制作过程中的制作缺陷混淆。为了在清理过程中尽可能保留文物历史信息,系统梳理景德镇窑传统制瓷工艺,对易与病害混淆的典型制作缺陷进行研究与识别,探讨传统制瓷工艺和成分特征对清理方法、修复材料选择方面的指导。从可识别性和耐老化性两方面讨论博物馆展览的瓷器修复尺度,结合实际工作谈瓷质文物保护修复中需要注意的问题,并对日后的实际工作与研究做一些展望。     

Floating culture: the unrecorded antiquities of England and Wales

In England and Wales there exists a corpus of unprovenanced and unrecorded antiquities; a corpus adrift from archaeological context and now ebbing and flowing across the antiquities market and which could be described as ‘floating culture’. This corpus includes illicit antiquities and also antiquities found legitimately but not recorded and subsequently sold with or without the landowner’s knowledge. The definition of floating culture as ‘traces of the human past not fixed on one position, place or level’ presents a way of conceptualising what is, in essence, a transnational issue. This paper explores floating culture and suggests that the impact of non-reporting of antiquities remains a significant ethical and legal challenge both for heritage protection policy and the antiquities market in the U.K. and beyond. Attention is given to the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales, and to the landowner-finder search agreement as potential ways of mitigating the flow of unrecorded antiquities of uncertain legal status. While neither document is enforceable, both have potential to improve the protection of the archaeological record. Many of the themes conceptualised by ‘floating culture’ are relevant to the wider discussion on heritage protection and the global trade in illicit antiquities.     

The nation,the élite and the Southeast Asian antiquities trade: With special reference to Thailand

Abstract

The dealings that the Thai nation state has had with archaeological sites and antiquities appear to fit at least as well within the framework of antiquarian collecting as within that of modern archaeology. It is argued that this reflects the potential that sites and antiquities have to function as cultural capital. Citing Pierre Bourdieu, it is proposed that there is a commonality of interests between the state and the many private collectors among the Thai elite and that this derives partly from the emphasis that is placed on the display or performative potential of sites and antiquities. An appreciation of how antiquities function as cultural capital is surely a prerequisite for any successful effort to counter the looting of sites and the illegal trade in antiquities.

‘There is an economy of cultural goods, but it has a specific logic.’[1]     

浅谈绢本重彩绘画的修复保护技术

中国传统的书画修复技术是一门古老而又深奥的学问,它所涉及的知识面非常广阔,是文物保护的一项重要内容。修复人员在实际工作中所面临的是一个又一个复杂的难题,为了保护好这些珍贵的文化遗存,在书画修复过程中我们既要以传统的修复理论为指导,又要有针对性地吸收国外同行好的修复经验,通过不断的试验、实践和总结,最终寻找出一条科学合理的修复方法。本文依照最小干预、修旧如旧、可再操作性的修复原则和理念,充分借鉴传统技术的优势,较好地解决了在修复绢本重彩绘画过程中对画绢和颜色的保护问题。     

The problem with looting: An alternative perspective on antiquities trafficking in Southeast Asia

The 1950s and 1960s constitute a key “moment” in the history of the looting of archaeological sites in Southeast Asia. The emergence in the region at that time of a commodity market for antiquities such as pottery triggered a wave of illicit excavation of archaeological sites. Simultaneous with the trafficking of antiquities out of the Philippines and Thailand into the hands of private collectors and museums in the West during this period and subsequent decades a thriving domestic antiquities market developed. It is argued here that the valorization of antiquities as national heritage, rather than inhibiting acquisition by citizen collectors, facilitated a process wherein collecting became a form of cultural capital accumulation. It is inaccurate to categorize Thailand and the Philippines simply as “source” or “supply” nodes in the global antiquities trade. This paper aims for a more nuanced approach to the geoeconomics of antiquities consumption.     

Between science and empire: the diplomatic struggle over Mesopotamian antiquities in Lisbon (1914–1926)

A powerful curiosity to discover the ancient world – reaching its peak in the nineteenth century – led to British, French, and German museums to enhance their collections with a great number of Mesopotamian antiquities. Most of these were the product of excavation work, which took years, followed by a shipping process fraught with hurdles and delays – much as when Babylonian and Assyrian antiquities were stranded in Portugal over the period 1914–26. In that case Portuguese officials seized the hoard of Babylonian and Assyrian items due to be sent to Germany at the beginning of the First World War by the German Oriental Society, which had carried out excavation works in Ottoman territories in the name of Kaiser II Wilhelm. The extensive British efforts and diplomatic exchanges aimed at bringing the pieces to London after the war, presents us with important clues regarding ownership disputes over antiquities, and the imperial struggle to acquire the cultural heritage of the near east. This study reveals that, under the existing legal framework, the items eventually taken to Berlin actually belonged to the Imperial Museum in Istanbul, and analyzes the discourse of ‘scientific concern’ constructed by British diplomacy.