論兩周金文所見的「南公」與「伯括」

“Nan Gong(南公)”and“Bo Kuo (伯括)”as Seen in the Inscriptions of the Zhou Dynasty

本文旨在研究兩周金文所見之「南公」與「伯括」，利用新出土材料論證兩者應為同一人。首先，整理目前見有「南公」或「伯括」銘文，認為西周早期的「南公」僅被視為重要祖先追憶，至於西周晚期及東周的「南公」與「伯括」則是納入追祖述源的歷史敘述之中。其次，利用銅器器形、出土編鐘及銘文字形分析葉家山M111年代，主張墓主曾侯立犬可能生活於成康時期，並參與滅商，受封南土，故墓葬年代不應晚至昭王時期。其三，主張「南公」與「伯括」同見之敘述乃反映器主立場，其論及遙遠先祖時，未必一律稱某祖、某公，亦會直稱遠祖名諱，展現論史之旁觀視角。故曾國銘文同見「伯括」及「南公」乃反映作器者不同敘述立場，而非學者所論之避複。

This article mainly discussed the question of whether the 'Nan Gong（南公）' and 'Bo Kuo（伯括）' seen in the Zhou Dynasty inscriptions are the same person. I tried to use the newly unearthed cultural relics for discussion, hoping to provide different views on this issue. Firstly, the appearing inscriptions with 'Nangong（南公）' or ' Bo Kuo（伯括）' were analyzed, and they were divided into two stages, first from the early Western Zhou Dynasty, and second from the late Western Zhou Dynasty to the Spring and Autumn Period. It is believed that the 'Nangong（南公）' in the former stage is only regarded as an important ancestor's memory. Secondly, through the three aspects of bronze ware age, with unearthed bells and inscriptions, it is argued that the age of M111 should not be later than that of King Zhao. The owner of the tomb probably lived in the Chengkang period, participated in the extermination of the Shang Dynasty, and was granted the title of Southern Land. Third, judging from other inscriptions, when the ancients talked about the stories of distant ancestors, they would also directly refer to the ancestors by name, in order to achieve the feeling of telling ancient history, so seeing 'Bo Kuo' or 'Nangong' together is a reflection of the works. The different narrative standpoints of the implementers are not the simple avoidance of repetition as discussed by scholars.