从若干项文物科技成果看我国文物保护技术的发展

20世纪末,我国的物保护科学技术基本形成了具有中国特色的完整的科学体系。在石质物、金属物、纸张物、竹木漆器物、壁画物、石窟物等的保护技术方面取得了多项科研成果,并且达到或接近世界先进水平,使我国许多珍贵的化遗产得到了抢救和有效地保护。     

也说师■鼎铭的“困(韋東)伯太师武”

师■鼎铭"困伯太师武"一句的"困(韋東)"二字,原文写法非常奇怪。裘锡圭先生释为"東(韋東)",读为"范围",认为是遵循、效法之意。本文同意把后一字释为"(韋東)",但把前一字改释为"困"。"困(韋東)"也是遵循、效法的意思。     

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.     

The Neo-Aramaic Dialects of Iran

Spoken vernacular dialects of Aramaic, generally known as Neo-Aramaic dialects, have survived down to modern times in various regions of the Middle East and can be divided into various subgroups. There are some islands of Neo-Aramaic in the West of Iran, which are situated on the eastern periphery of the Neo-Aramaic area. These include dialects spoken by Christians and Jews belonging to the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic subgroup in the West Azerbaijan, Kordestan and Kermanshah provinces and Neo-Mandaic spoken by Mandaeans in the Khuzestan province. This paper examines a number of distinctive features of the Neo-Aramaic dialects of Iran, including those that have been induced by contact with other languages in the area.     

董其昌《山水》册与《董范合参图》轴辨伪

上海博物馆藏董其昌《山水》册(共十开),为天启四年(1624)元旦所作,实并非董氏真迹。据考,该年四月董其昌才抵京。同时,该册对题均节录自董氏及明清书画著录著作与晚清文学笔记中,其第二开对题,与故宫博物院藏董氏癸酉(1633)夏五所作《董范合参图》轴题跋相同。再考《山水》册笔法,嫩弱飘浮,墨色平淡,与典型的董其昌风格相差甚远,更无其生拙秀逸之气;而《董范合参图》轴,用笔亦尖劲细碎,全幅墨气滞涩,艺术水准远不及故宫博物院藏董氏十二年前所作《仿古山水图》册,亦无法企及董氏卒前一年所作的《关山雪霁图》卷。可见,《山水》册和《董范合参图》轴非董氏本家之作。