论殷历纪年

发布时间：2018-04-26 12:27

本文选题：殷历 + 历史纪年　；参考：《史学月刊》2016年07期

【摘要】：殷历是中国战国时期形成的古代历法之一,假托以商汤十三年为纪元之首,并不等同于殷代之历,而且原本早已失传,在西汉末年刘歆的《世经》中存有部分内容的叙述。在东汉,殷历又被更改和添加内容,因此更不能作为考订夏商周历史纪年的依据。然而历史学家唐兰、陈梦家皆曾将殷历结合纬书、《竹书纪年》来考证夏商周三代纪年,故此申述所谓殷历的起源、演变及其在历法上的内容实质,辨析所有相关问题之自古以来的谬误说法,揭示了殷历一向缺乏正确体系,指出殷历与《易纬》《竹书纪年》等不能混为一体运用,而《易纬》则毫无历史年代考证上的价值。这是很重要的历史年代学原则,如若违背,其研究古代纪年之结果,不但不能解决问题,反而会滋生歧误,以致于离学术目标越来越远。
[Abstract]:Yin Li is one of the ancient calendars formed in the warring States period of China. It is not the same as the calendar of the Yin Dynasty, and it is not the same as that of the Yin Dynasty. There are some narrations in Liu Xin's Book of World in the late Western Han Dynasty. In the Eastern Han Dynasty, Yin Li was changed and added, so it could not be used as the basis for the historical chronology of Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties. However, the historians Tang Lan and Chen Mengjia have all combined the Yin Li with the Book of Weekly and the year of the Bamboo Book to study the three dynasties of the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties. Therefore, they have described the origin, evolution and content of the so-called Yin calendar in the calendar. The analysis of the fallacy of all related problems since ancient times reveals that Yin Li has always lacked a correct system, and points out that Yin Li and "Yi Wei" and "the year of the Bamboo Book" cannot be used as a whole, while "Yi Wei" has no value in the textual research of historical ages. This is a very important principle of historical chronology. If it is violated, the results of its research on ancient chronology will not solve the problems, but will breed ambiguities and lead to further and farther away from academic goals.
【分类号】：P194.3

【相似文献】