秦代簡牘文書學的個案研究——里耶秦簡9-2283、[16-5]和[16-6]三牘的物質形態、文書構成和傳遞方式

A Case Study of the Qin Wooden Administrative Documents: The Materiality, Textual Composition, and Delivery Methods of Slips 9-2283, [16-5], and [16-6] from the Liye Archive

出土號[16-5]和[16-6]的兩件木牘屬於里耶秦簡中最早公布的一批材料，當中載有洞庭守禮於秦始皇廿七年（前220）就興發勞動力運輸甲兵一事向屬縣發出的指示。關於這兩件木牘引申的文書處理問題，學界已累積了相當多的討論，惟受材料所限，一直未能找到突破點。《里耶秦簡（貳）》中新公布的9-2283牘，內容和形制上與[16-5]和[16-6]兩牘明顯相關，有助我們回應目前研究中未解的難題；更重要的是，通過分析三牘上的反印文和編繩痕跡，我們可以復原其存放形態，為研究秦代文書處理與存檔習慣提供了一個極佳的案例。9-2283、[16-5]和[16-6]三牘上反印文顯示，三者曾疊在一起存放，配合三牘上的編繩痕跡分析，本文推論三牘在編聯後曾以「折頁」方式收納。三件木牘均曾按「以道次傳別書」的方式傳送至遷陵縣，但由於洞庭郡守禮初次下發文書時，沒有指明行書路線和下令屬縣相報書回覆，因此[16-6]和[16-5]兩牘先後重複從鄰縣傳抄至遷陵縣。載有洞庭郡守禮追加補充內容的9-2283牘則是三件木牘中最後抵達遷陵縣的。結合三牘的疊壓次序分析，本文指出冊書的編聯次序與三牘抵達遷陵縣的次序相反，最晚抵達的放在冊書之首，最早的放在冊書之末。以上發現或可讓我們重新反思目前秦代文書形態的諸多問題。

The two unearthed wooden slips [16-5] and [16-6] were of the earliest batch made public from the Liye archive. They bore the same instruction from Governor (shou) Li of Dongting commandery on mobilizing laborers to transport armaments from Dongting commandery to the Capital and other commanderies in the 27th year into the reign of Qin Shi Huang (220 BCE). Regarding the slips in question, much emphasis has been placed on how administrative documents were handled in the Qin dynasty. However, no breakthrough has been made given the restriction in the existing finds. In the second volume of Liye Qin jian, the most recently released wooden slip 9-2283 bore clear resemblance to slips [16-5] and [16-6] in terms of content and material features, which in turn may resolve problems in the current research. The mirror-inverted imprints indicated that the three slips had once been placed one on top of the other. In addition, the traces of binding cords found on the three slips revealed that they had once been folded up as an “accordion” for storage after being bound with two sets of cords. Originally, the three slips were to be delivered as per prescribed route from Dongting commandery to Qianling county. There was no clear delivery itinerary designated by Dongting commandery, nor were the subordinate counties ordered to inform one another of respective receipt of documents. This would result in the wooden slips [16-5] and [16-6] being duplicated and delivered twice from a neighboring county to Qianling county. The slip 9-2283 bearing a mandate and being subsequently added in haste by Dongting commandery was the last of the three to arrive in Qianling county. In the analysis of the slips’ binding order, this article argues that such order ran counter to the order of the three slips’ arrival in Qianling county. In other words, the latest to arrive was placed on top, while the earliest was at the bottom. In all, the above discovery may initiate a re-consideration of the many issues currently surrounding administrative documents of the Qin dynasty.