楚都丹阳“丹淅说”与“枝江说”的对比研究

A Comparative Study of "Danxi Theory" and "Zhijiang Theory" of Danyang,Capital of Chu

本文主要从文献、族源、考古、地理等四个方面对楚都丹阳"丹淅说"和"枝江说"进行对比研究,然后综合起来考察。总的来说丹淅说优于枝江说,枝江说的文献依据较晚,在考古和族源方面完全得不到支持,在地理上也难以解释。但丹淅说也不圆满,存在很大的漏洞。丹淅说如要真正成立,还需要对枝江说方面的驳难作出认真的回应。

This article focuses on ＂Danxi Theory＂ and ＂Zhijiang Theory＂ of Danyang, Capital of Chu, by comparing four aspects： literatures, ethical origin, archaeology, and geography. The study investigates the different theories by integrating their natures. In conclusion, the ＂Danxi Theory＂ is more rational than the ＂Zhijiang Theory＂. The latter one appears late in literature, lacking supports from archaeology and ethnical origin, thus could not be geographically understood. However, the ＂Dangxi Theory＂ does not give a satisfactory explanation either. To make the argument sound, advocators of the ＂ Danxi Theory＂ should be give appropriate responds toward the critiques from those supporting the ＂ Zhijiang Theory＂.