戰國燕王戈器銘特徵及其定名辨偽問題
林清源
本文將燕國句兵區分成「燕王戈」與「非燕王戈」兩大類，前者指燕王或燕侯署名監造的句兵，後者指不是由燕王或燕侯署名監造的燕國句兵。此一分類的主要意義，在於凸顯這兩類句兵器銘特徵方面的差異。
目前見於著錄的戰國燕王戈約有六十九件，本文以其中二十七件考古出土器為基準，觀察這些句兵的形制及其銘文的格式、方位、行款與字體等項，從中歸納出多項規律特徵，再以這些器銘特徵做為辨別真偽的判準，持之與傳世的戰國燕王戈比對，結果發現《集成》11058、11109、11196、11226與《小校》10.38.2等五件燕王戈，以及《周金》6.147.1攻尹戈，疑竇叢生，可能出於後人偽造。此外，《集成》11220號戈的銘文，曾有學者懷疑是後人偽刻，對於這個問題，筆者也有所澄清。
燕國句兵名稱極具特色，見於自名的，至少就有戈、鋸、歴、𢟍與歴𢟍等五種，此外可能還有戟、械兩種。關於這些名稱的異同，筆者在檢討各家說法之後，認為器類名稱的異同應由器物形制裁斷，主張器類名稱不同基本上即表示器物形制有別，並進一步歸納出燕國各類型句兵的形制特徵。
關鍵詞：戰國 燕國 古文字 兵器 辨偽
“
Yen-Wang-Ge” of the Warring States Periods: A Study on the Features of Implement and the Inscription, Naming, and the Differentiation of FakesChin-yen Lin
Department of Chinese Language and Literature, National Chi Nan University
In this article, Yan State’s dagger-axes are divided into “yen-wang-ge”（燕王戈）and “non yen-wang-ge”.（非燕王戈）The former refers to daggers made under the order of the kings or the feudal princes; the latter includes those not made under the order of the kings or the feudal princes. This classification is meant to distinguish the one from the other through their distinction in implement and inscriptions.Among the sixty-nine pieces of “yan-wang-ge” of the Warring States Period recorded in books, this paper investigates twenty-seven pieces of archaeological excavations in terms of their shape, pattern, bearings, style, and the calligraphy of their inscription. By applying the shared features found in these archaeological excavations as a criterion of discriminating between the real and the fake, I find some later “yan-wang-ge” of the Warring States Period to be counterfeits, including five pieces of “yan-wang-ge”—Chi-Cheng（《集成》）11058, 11109, 11196, 11226, Hsiao-Chiao（《小校》）10.38.2, and one “kung-yin-ge”（攻尹戈）in Chou-chin（《周金》）6.147.1. Moreover, many scholars regard the inscription on Chi-Cheng 11220 as a forgery done during a later period. My study reviews this debate in the hope of clarifying some of the issues.
“Self-naming” is characteristic of Yan State’s dagger-axes. There are at least five kinds Yan State’s dagger-axes—including: ge（戈）, ju（鋸）, guei（欵）, fou（溵）, and guei-fou（欵溵）—commonly recognized being named after themselves. In addition, the names ji（戟）and xie（械）are still to be proved. After examining the diverse arguments about a weapon’s name, I propose that a weapon’s name is closely related to its shape, i.e., different names basically suggest different shapes. I further sum up the joint features of shapes found in Yan State’s dagger-axes.
Keywords: Warring States Period, Yan State, paleography, weapons, differentiation of fakes