“紫檀木边点翠金质山水图围屏”屏心的研究与修复

为了解故宫博物院藏文物“紫檀木边点翠金质山水图围屏”屏心的制作工艺,使用X射线荧光光谱仪、拉曼光谱仪、红外光谱仪及数码显微镜对文物进行检测,明确了屏风所用材质:满铺“卍”字纹点翠为基底,大面积山体使用纯金打造,细节装饰配件则用金银合金、金银铜合金和银等金属材料制成,金质嵌件用金属丝拴结的方式与点翠基底相连接。笔者以科学技术分析为依托,确定了屏风的制作工艺为:制作木板底纹—点翠—制作金属嵌件—金属部件组装固定。针对点翠脱落严重、灰尘堆积严重、金属部件脱落、点翠基底开裂等伤况,对文物进行了点翠加固、除尘、金属部件加固、基底修复四个步骤完成修复。此修复研究为了解清代宫廷大型屏风的制作工艺提供了实践依据,并为后期同类文物的修复提供经验支持。     

西风吹拂下的晚清民国艺术

晚清民国,中国艺术处于前所未有的历史转型时期。这一时期的艺术是西风吹拂下的艺术,是中西杂陈、新旧交并的艺术,西方艺术的写实主义被引入作为革新旧艺术的利器。20世纪中叶由于社会原因,中国艺术又从写实主义过渡到现实主义。处于这一时期的艺术家,关注社会,心系国家,把艺术革新跟社会革新、跟国家的命运紧密联系起来。而这一切,都是因为"内外交困",这一切也都是因为"内外交合"。     

清代银覆斛式套杯装饰工艺研究

故宫博物院收藏的银覆斛式套杯档案记载为明代,由十二件依次能叠放在一起的银杯组成,每件银杯均镶嵌黑色物质以在内壁形成历代名人高士典故为题材的装饰画,内底注释典故名称,外底标明斋堂款识,外壁其中一面注明制作材料来源的“大明皇帝赐金”字样。故宫博物院张丽研究员根据“醉卧瓮下”历史典故产生的时代背景,推测其制作时代定为清代。在我国,银器表面镶嵌黑色物质的工艺十分罕见,一些学者将银套杯镶嵌黑色物质的工艺称为“阴刻填黑漆”,而查阅资料发现银套杯的表面装饰工艺更可能为乌银镶嵌。乌银在国外被称为“niello”,是指一种或多种金属与硫在高温下生成的黑色金属硫化物,被用来装饰金、银和铜等金属器物。将乌银实施于金属器表面的工艺被称为乌银镶嵌。为了明确银套杯的表面装饰工艺,采用扫描电子显微镜-能谱仪、X射线荧光光谱法、X射线衍射法对其中一个银杯进行微观形貌观察,元素、物相进行分析。显微形貌观察结果表明黑色物质通过加热熔融的方法嵌入嵌槽,在固化后进行抛光使表面平整。能谱分析结果表明黑色物质由Cu、Pb、Ag和S元素组成,衍射分析结果表明检测样品中含有硫铜银矿。综合以上分析结果表明黑色物质为银/铜/铅硫化物形成...     

清代官窑瓷器的透明釉成分分析研究

清代官窑瓷器元素成分数据库建立工作,是上海博物馆古陶瓷科技分析研究中的一个重要组成部分。本项工作以清代官窑瓷器的透明釉为主要研究对象,应用无损的X荧光检测设备和定量分析方法,分析了多种类别瓷器中透明釉的成分配比,涉及到的清代官窑瓷器品种主要包括青花、白釉、釉里红、高温颜色釉、粉彩等。主要包含有清代官窑瓷器中透明釉元素成分分布特征、样品分类、完整器成分分析特点等方面的内容和讨论,通过清代官窑瓷器中元素含量的变化情况,给出清代官窑瓷器的元素成分数据库相关信息,同时结合古文献记载,探讨清代官窑瓷器制作的有关规律。     

明清时期安徽沿淮女性的生活选择

明清时期安徽沿淮地区女性出现了游走乞讨与守家耕织的生存方式,既说明当地社会经济发展的滞后,又显现其存在着发展空间,反映了该区域社会经济发展的徘徊不前.部分女性施舍行为凸现了该区域贫富分化的加剧.沿淮女性的生存方式突破了传统社会"男耕女织"的理想模式,女性在经济活动中享受了与男性一样选择职业的自由.     

生计与风水:清代湘南地区的矿业开发与生态环境

湘南地区毗邻赣、粤、桂三省,地理位置特殊,是一个复杂的地理单元。及至清代,湘南地区已是湖南省乃至全国铜、铅、银等矿业生产的主要区域。长达数百年的矿产开采与冶炼,促进了地方社会的经济发展,也给当地的生态环境带来深远影响。由此,湘南官绅民各界对矿业开发引发的环境问题亦有因应,“坑冶十害论”和“九嶷山封禁案”即为其集中体现。开矿采砂本为解决贫民生计而采取的措施,但因破坏风水、污染水土等一系列影响环境的后果,以致出现开矿与禁矿之争,使得湘南地区矿业开发一度出现波折。这两例个案亦折射出在“重本抑末”的传统社会中地方官绅士民在生计与风水之间的离合关系。地方社会以保护风水为由严禁矿冶,在一定程度上遏止了生态环境的破坏与恶化,不过,其在环保方面发挥的作用也不宜被高估。     

清代陋规及其对基层司法和地方民情的影响——从徽州讼费帐单谈起

徽州讼费帐单真实地印证了清代基层司法中名目繁多的陋规.陋规的索取者主要是书吏和衙役,其存在及泛滥的原因比较复杂,给清代基层司法和地方民情造成了恶劣影响.清统治者借助于陋规以对百姓起诉权进行控制的理念是错误的,其意图不可能实现.     

On Meng Sen’s teaching and lecture notes of Ming and Qing history at Peking University during the 1930s

ABSTRACT

While teaching the histories of the Ming and Qing dynasties, Meng Sen (1869–1937), developed three textbooks in the 1930s: Lecture Notes on the Ming History (明史讲义 Mingshi jiangyi), Lecture Notes on the Qing History (清史讲义 Qingshi jiangyi), and Lecture Notes on the History of the Founding of the Manchu State (满洲开国史讲义 Manzhou kaiguo shi jiangyi). In these book titles, the term “history” refers specifically to “standard history.” In tracing Meng Sen’s original intention in producing these textbooks, all three works suggest the author’s desire to write history. He wrote Lecture Notes on the Ming History to prepare a future revision of the History of the Ming (明史 Mingshi); similarly he wrote Lecture Notes on the Qing History and Lecture Notes on the History of the Founding of the Manchu State with the intention to revise the Draft History of the Qing (清史稿 Qingshi gao). Meng Sen summarized Sima Guang’s (司马光, 1019–86) view of history as “imitating the good and avoiding the bad,” which he believed represented the “essential meaning of history.” Meng followed Sima Guang’s model in compiling the Lecture Notes on the Ming History and Lecture Notes on the Qing History, as shown in their style and format. By comparison, his writing of the Lecture Notes on the History of the Founding of the Manchu State attempted to merge the traditional annals–biographic style with narrative history from the West, or to pour old wine into a new bottle. Meng Sen presented his innovative efforts at Peking University, introducing young scholars to standards for history writing, and doing his utmost to guide and encourage his students; some of whom became noted scholars in the study of Ming and Qing histories.     

The Daoguang Response to the Āfāqī khoja Jahāngīr during the 1826–1828 Jahāngīr Uprising

This study examines Qing state attention to the Muslim challenger Jahāngīr, leader of Xinjiang’s 1826–1828 Jahāngīr Uprising. It considers how imperial agents, guided by Emperor Daoguang, defined and processed this contender, as well what this rendering implied for views of “Hui Frontier” Muslims. As will be seen, Jahāngīr was depicted as not just “treacherous” and duplicitous, but also an external “barbarian.” This image – crafted from military reports, imperial edicts, confessions, ritual, sentencing, and punishment – served to clarify a narrative with two salient characteristics. First, the khoja was set as the keystone of the conflict, the management of whom signaled a restoration of imperial integrity. Second, he was differentiated from local Turkic Muslims “Hui,” who (with ambiguity) were framed as Qing subjects. This rendering mirrored earlier Qing (esp. Jiaqing Reforms) depictions of borderland rebel leaders, suggestive of a solidification of the “idea” of Xinjiang as interior to the empire.