http://www.kyoto-up.or.jp/book.php?id=1755 　　 　　 契丹語資料に見える高麗に関する記述と、高麗資料に見える契丹人に関する記述を双方向的に分析。さらに、韓国国立中央博物館所蔵の契丹小字銅鏡銘文·女真大字碑文·満洲文朝鮮国王奏謝表を解読し、韓半島と契丹·女真·満洲との関係史を解明する。 　　 　　Afterword:On the Results of Deciphering the “Seven-character Quatrain Inscribed on the Bronze Mirror in Khitai Small Script” 　　 　　In the summer of 2010, I finally encountered the bronze mirror with the inscription of a seven-character quatrain, of whose fame I had long heard, in the repository of the National Museum of Korea. Even through white gloves, I could feel that she was responding sympathetically to my excitement. She had come from the Mos Diau-d Hul?i Kitai Gur (Great Khitai State) to Korea and then disappeared for almost a thousand years. In the early 20th century, she finally revealed her exquisite face to the world. Over thirty years ago, when I first saw her picture, I had already known her charms, but had no chance to meet her. She, too, must have waited silently all that time, like a rare beauty of marriageable age who waits for her ‘knight on a white horse’, AISIN GIORO Ulhicun,to come a long, long distance and lift her mysterious veil.” 　　 　　A Khitai poem is far more difficult to decipher than an epitaph. This is due to the fact that epitaphs generally describe the grave owners' genealogies, their personal histories, and their families. They also use relatively fixed literary formulas, and include many transliterated Chinese words. On the other hand, inscriptions added at the end of epitaphs, which are often ignored and go undeciphered, are the very poems with end rhymes that reveal Khitai ethnic linguistic identity. Thus, if one were to attempt to decipher Khitai script, the quantity of vocabulary items deciphered from the Khitai's own language must be the standard of evaluation. It is not a matter that for decades no one had sought to decipher the quatrain on the bronze mirror, but that no one had the ability to do so. The National Museum of Korea has long exhibited this precious object to the public—an action in accord with the ideal, “Scholarship must be available to all under Heaven; How could it be monopolized?” 　　 　　 Below, I will briefly review the primary source materials written in Khitai scripts and recount the issues surrounding them as an afterword for this book. 　　 　　Today, if one wishes to study the now-vanished Khitai language and thereby investigate the history of the Khitai, one must rely on sources written in Khitai large and small scripts that were produced in the historical period from the middle of the 10th to the first half of 12th century. These sources are rich both in quality and quantity, surpassing the limits of Chinese sources, giving a full picture of Khitai civilization, and showing various vital elements of the neighboring civilizations that were in contact with the Khitai. Because of continuous discoveries in Liao-Jin archaeology in recent years, the quantity of primary source materials has also continued to increase. Hereafter, I refer to these materials by the general term “Khitai primary source materials.” 　　According to the Liaoshi, the Khitai large script was created in the 5th year of the Shence era（920）under the reign of Emperor Taizu of the Liao dynasty, and the Khitai small script was created in the 3rd or 4th year of the Tianzan era (924 or 925) under the reign of Emperor Taizong of the Liao dynasty. According to the Jinshi, use of these two kinds of scripts was abolished in the 2nd year of the Mingchang era (1191) under the reign of Emperor Zhangzong of the Jin dynasty. At present, dated Khitai primary source materials are identified as having originated during a span of time stretching across the Liao and Jin dynasties. The upper limit of the primary source materials in Khitai large script is the 10th year of the Yingli era (960) under the reign of Emperor Muzong of the Liao dynasty, and the lower limit is the 16th year (1176) of the Dading era under the reign of Emperor Shizong of the Jin dynasty. The upper limit of primary source materials in small script is the 22th year of the Chongxi era (1053) under the reign of Emperor Xingzong of the Liao dynasty, and the lower limit is the 15th year (1175) of the Dading era under the reign of Emperor Shizong of the Jin dynasty. If undated or fragmental materials are included, the time span would be extended. For example, fragments of steles excavated in the mausoleum of Emperor Taizu were inscribed in Khitai large script. They must be dated prior to the 10th year of the Yingli era. 　　In the early Liao era, during the 10th century, when the creation of Khitai scripts had been completed, the Khitai small script does not appear to have been used extensively. After about the middle of the Liao era, the small script came to be used much more frequently than the large script, and this numerical superiority was maintained to the end. In extant source materials, the quantity using the small script is three times as numerous as that using the large script. Although the designations “large script” and “small script” are seen in Chinese sources, the fact that Khitais themselves called the large script the “old script” or “script of the large seal” is only seen in Khitai sources. Chinese sources simply mention the difference in the time of their creation and do not refer to differences in usage between large and small scripts. At present all official seals so far discovered use only the large script, and the small script was used only in private seals. The Khitai name ”script of the large seal” for the large script is probably based on actual practice. 　　Khitai primary source materials are classified into three groups based on their form, that is, whether they have been carved, written in ink, or cast. Carved inscriptions have mainly been inscribed on natural rock faces, stone, metal products, pottery, or jade. Ink inscriptions have chiefly been written on earthen walls, silk cloth, leather, wooden products, and bottom of pottery. Cast inscription are found on metal products. 　　Khitai primary source materials are also classified in four groups based on content. The first group includes ”epitaphs,” ”gravestone inscription," "memorial stele," and “ink writing on wall of tomb chambers" that describe grave owners' personal histories and genealogies. The number of characters used in this type is not fixed and varies from dozens to thousands. The second group includes “stele,” "writing on walls," and “carved stone” that record journeys or messages. The number of characters used in this second type is generally limited. The third group includes “silk pictures” and “silk writing" that are captions of pictures or grave furnishings. The number of characters used in this type is not fixed, and varies from several to hundreds. The fourth group includes “coin inscriptions," "seal inscriptions," "mirror inscriptions," and “pottery signatures" that explain the purpose of production or name the products. The number of characters used for this type is the fewest. Therefore, the first group is the most valuable for the study of Khitai history. 　　Here, I will introduce the first group as it comprises the most significant category of primary sources written in Khitai scripts. I will call them by the general term ”Khitai epitaphs." Some of the Khitai epitaphs that have been excavated to this point have been found together with Chinese epitaphs. But Chinese epitaphs provide only limited help in deciphering the Khitai scripts because they are not word-for-word translations of one another. Furthermore, one cannot hope to gain a full picture of Khitais' historical activity and culture through the Chinese epitaphs because they frequently omitted important contents that Chinese could not understand. Therefore, one must depend on Khitai materials, mainly on Khitai epitaphs, to investigate Khitai ethnic identity. In order to make a major breakthrough in Khitai studies and to reconstruct Khitai linguistics and Khitai history, deciphering and study of Khitai epitaphs form an essential foundation. “Recording the truth frankly” is the characteristically candid style of Khitai epitaphs that preserve oral histories from an age without writing, and many simply reproduce genealogies of Khitai families without elaboration. Of course, today we are unable to trace directly the genealogy of the Khitai scripts, in fact, contemporary Chinese who wrote the epitaphs were likewise unqualified to grasp it. The many omissions and mistakes frequently seen in Khitai genealogies in Chinese epitaphs support such an argument. 　　 Use of the two Khitai scripts lasted over 270 years from their creation to abolishment, and they clearly show marks of phonetic and grammatical changes in the Khitai language in step with the changing times. Khitai epitaphs capture a realistic picture of Khitai history that Chinese sources either ignored or misconstrued. Therefore, in the study of Khitai epitaphs, one must neither rely too heavily on linguistics or history, but instead strike a balance between the two disciplines. “Decipherment” performed without a linguistic base is an inferior method that is tantamount to guesswork as it relies on comparisons with written Chinese sources and epitaphs to discover the meaning of a limited number of transliterated Chinese words and cannot be used to decipher many Khitai words. ”Pure” linguistic study without historical literacy loses sight of historical background concealed behind the language and winds up resulting in “decipherment" that is fragmentary, replete with mistakes, and also little better than guesswork. 　　Today, the greatest stumbling block for Khitai studies is the intentional cover-up of fundamental source materials. An extremely long time is consumed from the time of discovery to publication of an epitaph. Once it is published, the photographs are often too unclear to read the characters, which is possibly done intentionally. For example, Wu and Janhunen (2010) published photographs of rubbings of two epitaphs, but the published photographs appear to have been deliberately occluded, although the rubbings were very clear when I previously viewed them. In extreme cases, only hand copied manuscript versions of epitaphs are published, without photographic evidence. As long as one must rely on such materials, there is no hope of correctly deciphering the Khitai scripts and those who do not have direct access to the original sources or authentic photographs of them will be misled. Hand copied versions often mistake clefts and cracks in the stone on which the epitaph has been inscribed as strokes of characters, and often contain spelling mistakes based solely on over-active imaginations. As a result, the rendering of the phonographic elements that comprise a word will deviate from the system of vowel harmony found in the Khitai language, and the process of deciphering a word runs into a blind alley. 　　A further problem is the lack of respect for precedent achievements in studies of the Khitai scripts. For example, many important discoveries such as suffixes added to the end of ordinals in the Khitai language that show gender, the ?ur?n?n that shows the “style name” of Khitai males, the tatar~dadar that shows Tatars in the Khitai language, and the ablative case and instrumental case of the Khitai language etc were all published in my work prior to 2003, as I have indicated in relevant passages in this book. Nevertheless, Wu and Janhunen (2010) contend that all these characteristics were discovered by Wu in 2007. It must be noted that such scholarship violates academic norms and I find myself resigned to the fact this is related to the intentional cover-up of primary source materials needed to conduct research in the field. 　　Primary source materials in Khitai scripts should be understood as the common cultural property of humankind. The promotion of academic progress by deciphering them will only be possible through joint efforts of scholars around the world. Here, I wish to expose the current deleterious practices in academia that prevent the open display of primary sources, such as neglecting to publish rubbing of epitaphs in their original form and instead publishing only manuscript copies. I fervently hope that additional primary source materials will be excavated in the future, and the absence of academic morals will be corrected as soon as possible.

浏览：2560

设置 修改 撤销 录入时间：2011/9/23 15:33:19