發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-29 05:57

  本文選題：秦代 + 南越國(guó)�。� 參考：《中國(guó)歷史地理論叢》2010年04期

【摘要】：本文通過(guò)對(duì)傳世古官印"南海司空"之性質(zhì)和新出土南越國(guó)木簡(jiǎn)所見(jiàn)"南海"地名之性質(zhì)的重新研究,對(duì)秦南�？ぽ犛心虾？h說(shuō)進(jìn)行了商榷,認(rèn)為所謂傳世秦官印"南海司空"估計(jì)是南越國(guó)官印的誤斷,南越國(guó)木簡(jiǎn)所見(jiàn)"南海"地名指的當(dāng)是南越國(guó)的南�？�,也不能排除是指南�？ぶ�(即南越國(guó)都番禺城)的可能性,但沒(méi)有任何證據(jù)可以證明指的是南海縣,有學(xué)者推測(cè)秦代與南越國(guó)時(shí)期一樣也設(shè)有南�？h,顯然缺乏立論的根基。
[Abstract]:Based on the re-study of the nature of the ancient official seal "the South China Sea Sikang" and the nature of the place names of the "South China Sea" seen by the newly unearthed South Yue wooden slips, this paper discusses the theory of Nanhai County under the jurisdiction of the Southern Sea County of the Qin Dynasty. It is believed that the so-called Qin Guanyin "South China Sea Sikang" was estimated to be a mistake in the official seal of South Vietnam. The place name of "South China Sea" as seen in the wooden slips of South Vietnam refers to the Nanhai County of South Vietnam. Nor can we rule out the possibility of Nanhai County (that is, Panyu City, the capital of South Vietnam), but there is no evidence to prove that it is Nanhai County. Some scholars speculate that there was Nanhai County in the Qin Dynasty as well as in the Southern Yue period, which obviously lacks the foundation of the argument.
【作者單位】： 暨南大學(xué)歷史系;
【基金】：教育部人文社會(huì)科學(xué)研究規(guī)劃項(xiàng)目(09YJA770021)
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：K928.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 韓維龍;劉瑞;莫慧旋;;廣州市南越國(guó)宮署遺址西漢木簡(jiǎn)發(fā)掘簡(jiǎn)報(bào)[J];考古;2006年03期

2 胡建;楊勇;溫敬偉;;廣州市南越國(guó)宮署遺址2003年發(fā)掘簡(jiǎn)報(bào)[J];考古;2007年03期

【共引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周曉陸;秦封泥所見(jiàn)安徽史料考[J];安徽大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2003年03期

2 李云;;試論口岸貿(mào)易與城市近代化[J];保山師專學(xué)報(bào);2005年06期

3 魏立華;閆小培;;1949-1987年(重)工業(yè)優(yōu)先發(fā)展戰(zhàn)略下的中國(guó)城市社會(huì)空間研究——以廣州市為例[J];城市發(fā)展研究;2006年02期

4 金岱;張永t，

本文編號(hào)：1949759