青铜器“窃曲纹”名实考  

A Study on the Name and Meaning of the Qiequ Pattern

作　　者：王清雷[1] WANG Qinglei(Institute of Music,Chinese National Academy of Arts,Beijing 100029)

机构地区：[1]中国艺术研究院音乐研究所,北京100029

出　　处：《文化艺术研究》2022年第6期43-48,113,共7页Studies in Culture and Art

基　　金：国家社科基金艺术学重大项目“中国艺术考古资料整理与研究”(项目编号:21ZD09)之子课题“音乐考古与中国礼乐文明研究”的阶段性成果;2019年中国艺术研究院基本科研业务费项目“音乐考古学概论”的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：“窃曲纹”作为一种青铜器纹饰的名称,首见于《商周彝器通考》一书,其命名源自《吕氏春秋·适威》。但是,笔者在阅读《吕氏春秋》的研究文献时发现,“窃曲”并非一个词语,“窃”是前一句的句尾,“曲”是后一句的句头,“窃曲”一词根本不存在。文博考古界使用了数十年的“窃曲纹”竟然是历史上并不存在的一种青铜器纹饰,是不同研究领域的学者对古代文献不同的点校所导致的讹误,属于名实不符。但是,对于现代考古学而言,窃曲纹这一命名并非文献学的问题,而是语言学的问题。根据语言学“约定俗成”的命名原则,窃曲纹是一种集体性的“约定俗成”。故此,从语言学的视角而言,窃曲纹不仅“名实相符”,还属于“善名”之列。Qiequ, as the name of a pattern on bronzeware, is firstly seen in An Examination of Sacrificial Vessels of Shang and Zhou and stems from Lyushi Chunqiu. Yet literatures on Lyushi Chunqiu reveals that qiequ is not a word but two separate words. The qiequ pattern, widely used in archaeology, is actually non-exist and a mistake due to wrong punctuations added to ancient literatures by scholars from other disciplines, its name mismatching its reality. Yet to modern archaeology, qiequ is not a problem of bibliography but one of linguistics. According to linguistic principles, qiequ is an example of convention and hence its name matches its reality. Therefore, from the linguistic point of view, the name of qiequ not only matches its reality but is also excellent.

关 键 词：窃曲纹 名实 语言学 约定俗成 

分 类 号：K879.4[历史地理—考古学及博物馆学]