浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)
 
   2025年5月23日 星期五   首页 |  期刊介绍 |  编委会 |  投稿指南 |  信息服务 |  期刊订阅 |  联系我们 |  预印本过刊 |  浙江省高校学报研究会栏目 |  留言板 |  English Version
浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)  2024, Vol. 54 Issue (7): 106-125    DOI: 10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2024.01.301
主题栏目:丝路文明研究 最新目录| 下期目录| 过刊浏览| 高级检索 |
李盛铎等人窃取敦煌写卷的证据
徐浩
河南财经政法大学 图书馆,河南 郑州 450046
The Evidence of Stealing Dunhuang Scrolls by Li Shengduo and the Others
Xu Hao
Library, Henan University of Economics and Law, Zhengzhou 450046, China

全文: PDF (1490 KB)   RICH HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
摘要 作为困扰敦煌学界一百多年的公案,李盛铎等人窃取甘肃解京敦煌写卷一事还缺乏关键性证据,即如何证明李盛铎等人的占有行为并非正当。调查取证的对象不在于被盗写卷本身,而在于当时为了掩盖盗窃行为而被撕裂充数留存在中国国家图书馆中的敦煌残卷。通过对两组断裂数量最多的国图藏卷的实证分析,可以发现它们在古代使用时间不长,断裂方式非常一致,纸张长度普遍接近,千字文号相对集中,残卷之间的撕裂痕迹明显呈现出人为故意的特征;与此相似,其他34组包含6号以上、能够直接缀合的北敦13800号以前的国图残卷也呈现出惊人一致的特征。这些数量庞大、被人为撕裂的残卷,正是李盛铎等人有组织地掩盖自己非法窃取敦煌写卷的关键证据。新见档案所见原解经委员武向晨题跋中自述的解京写卷装运细节,也为李盛铎等人为何采用上述撕裂方式提供了重要的文献佐证。
服务
把本文推荐给朋友
加入我的书架
加入引用管理器
E-mail Alert
RSS
作者相关文章
徐浩
关键词 李盛铎敦煌写卷缀合武向晨题跋    
Abstract:It is well known that Li Shengduo and the others stole Dunhuang scrolls transported from Gansu to Beijing, which is a big case in the academic history of Dunhuang. Previous research is based on historical information retold by outsiders. Although many people reach the consensus, the facts and details are still unclear, and it is difficult to make a definitive case. The key to solving the case lies in proving that the possessions of Li Shengduo and the others was not legitimate. The focus of investigation and evidence collection does not lie in the stolen scrolls themselves, but on the Dunhuang fragments preserved in the National Library of China, which were torn to cover up the theft. Any fragment that shows the obvious sign of being torn and can be directly pieced together are immediate evidence of the theft.By analysing two groups of Dunhuang scrolls in the collection of the NLC, namely BD4416+BD4438+BD4410+BD4408+BD4474+BD4503+BD4514+BD4328+BD4349+BD4521+BD4340+BD4347+BD4455+BD4513+BD4754+ BD4760+BD4436 (the Mahāpraj?āpāramitā-sūtra, Fascicle Fifty-two) and BD2376+BD2356+BD2734+BD2570+BD2395+BD2434+BD2783+BD2388+BD2396+BD2786+BD2374+BD2518+BD2703+BD2702+BD2652+BD2398+BD2402+BD2428+BD2414+BD2640+BD2772 (the Lotus Sūtra, Fascicle Two), it can be found that each group of the torn scroll was used for a very short period of time, and that the manner of breakage is very similar, the length of each fragment is roughly close to that of the others, and the characters of the Qianziwen (千字文) that encode the fragments are relatively centralized. The sign of being torn between the fragments clearly show the characteristics of human intentionality.Similar to the two cases mentioned above, the other 34 groups, totaling 275 fragments with more than six fragments in each group, also show striking similarities in terms of the length of the fragments, their state of preservation, how they were torn up, and the distribution of the characters of the Qianziwen. These huge numbers of artificially torn fragments are typical evidence of the organized efforts of Li Shengduo and the others to cover up the theft of the Dunhuang scrolls.Fortunately, the original inscription of Wu Xiangchen, a member of the escort committee, at the end of Dunhuang manuscript C14.701 in the collection of the National Museum of China, describes in detail the process of transporting the Dunhuang scrolls to Beijing, and provides important documentary evidence as to why Li Shengduo and the others employed the above-mentioned method of destruction. The inscription says that “the whole scroll is divided into eighteen boxes; each box of four hundred and twenty scrolls; each scroll is six meters long”, proving that the scrolls reconstructed from the fragments were originally long scrolls, and that the destruction was man-made, and each box of scrolls was numbered using four or five characters of the Qianziwen. This is precisely the reason why the word size of the above fragments of the scrolls are mostly below three to five.Incidentally, it should be noted that some scholars have maintained, through the reconstruction of the fragments, that the torn parts between the collection of the NLC and the old collection of Li Shengduo were made by Li. This claim is difficult to believe due to a lack of analysis and argumentation.
Key wordsLi Shengduo    Dunhuang scrolls    reconstruction    the original inscription of Wu Xiangchen   
收稿日期: 2024-01-30     
基金资助:国家社科基金冷门绝学研究专项(20VJXT012);国家社科基金一般项目(22BZS094)
作者简介: 徐浩(https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7583-4339),男,河南财经政法大学图书馆副研究馆员,文学博士,主要从事敦煌学研究;
引用本文:   
徐浩. 李盛铎等人窃取敦煌写卷的证据[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2024, 54(7): 106-125. Xu Hao. The Evidence of Stealing Dunhuang Scrolls by Li Shengduo and the Others. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2024, 54(7): 106-125.
链接本文:  
https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2024.01.301     或     https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/Y2024/V54/I7/106
发表一流的成果,传播一流的发现,提供一流的新知

浙ICP备14002560号-5
版权所有 © 2009 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)    浙ICP备05074421号
地址:杭州市天目山路148号 邮编:310028 电话:0571-88273210 88925616 E-mail:zdxb_w@zju.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发  技术支持:support@magtech.com.cn